lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: syscals
FromFrank Schaefer <>
Date09 Apr 2002 12:06:30 +0200
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 04:10, mark manning wrote:
> ok - according to unistd.h we now have exactly 256 syscalls allocated (unless im missing something).  my code needs to be able to account for every single possible syscall and so i need to be able to store the syscall number in a standard way.  not all syscalls are catered for on the outset by at any time the user can say "i need to use syscall x which takes y parameters" and the code will be able to take care of it.
> 
> the problem is that i am currently reserving only 8 bits for the syscall number.  this is ok for now but if we ever get another syscall its going to be unuseable by my existing code :) - should i be reserving 16 bits now in preperation for some new syscalls being added ?
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
Hmm...

dunno if you got this right. There are maximal 256 syscalls possible,
and, right -- exactly this amount of syscalls is in the entrytable. But
alotalotalot of them are defined as sys_ni_syscall (not yet
implemented).
I think there is still some space for enhancements. See
arch/i386/kernel/entry.S.

Regards
Frank


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2008