Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Jan 1997 22:17:39 +0100 (MET) | From | Hans Lermen <> | Subject | Re: 2.1.18: Bad syscall number for new query_module syscall |
| |
On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Henrik Storner wrote:
> new query_module syscall - it's set to 166, but should be 167 (166 > is the improved vm86 syscall introduced in 2.1.15).
Right! 166 _is_ the new vm86 syscall.
> BTW, anyone from the dosemu group want to comment on whether the old > or the new vm86 syscall should be named "vm86" ? To avoid name > clashes, perhaps the new vm86 syscall (166) should be "vm86plus" ...
Ooops. I have to admit, this one was forgotten :-( sorry, my fault. (we 'hand coded' it in dosemu-0.64.2.1, because it isn't in the libs yet)
> > --- linux/include/asm-i386/unistd.h.orig Tue Dec 31 11:47:31 1996 > +++ linux/include/asm-i386/unistd.h Tue Dec 31 11:50:13 1996 > @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ > -#define __NR_vm86 113 > +#define __NR_vm86old 113 > +#define __NR_vm86 166 > +#define __NR_query_module 167
If I understand Linus right, the new vm86 should replace the old one, while preserving _binary_ compatibility (syscall 113 translates to 166) For new compiled stuff, the libc and/or the application should be adapted. So the above naming seems correct to me. (though we have nothing against naming the syscall-166 vm86plus)
Hans <lermen@fgan.de>
| |