[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4508.1306283693@localhost>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 20:34:53 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...senPartnership.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40
On Tue, 24 May 2011 09:16:28 +0200, Ingo Molnar said:
> * Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@...ssion.com> wrote:
> > My gut feel says we should really implement an
> > include/asm-generic/unistd-common.h to include all new system calls.
> >
> > That way there would be only one file to touch instead of 50. Certainly it
> > works for include/asm-generic/unistd.h for the architectures that use it.
> > And all we really need is just a little abstraction on that concept.
>
> I suppose that could be tried, although in practice it would probably be
> somewhat complex due to the various compat syscall handling differences.
Can somebody fill us newcomers in on the arch-aeology of why some syscalls have
different numbers on different archs? I know it's partially because some simply
didn't implement some syscalls so there were numbering mismatches, but would it
have been *that* hard to wire all of those skipped syscalls up to one stub
'return -ENOSYS'?
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists