Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:22:16 -0700 | From | Christian Zankel <> | Subject | Xtensa syscalls (Was: Re: 2.6.12-rc5-mm1) |
| |
Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>Chris, are there any existing binaries that rely on your implementations >>>of old_mmap, sys_fork, sys_vfork, sys_olduname or sys_ipc and need to >>>work with future kernels? Otherwise, you should probably drop these. >>>For sys_ipc, you would need to add the subcalls directly to the table, >>>like parisc does. > Hmm, xtensa is now in -rc1, with the obsolete syscalls still in there, > so I guess this about the last chance to correct the ABI. Applying the > patch obviously breaks all sorts of user space binaries and probably > also requires the appropriate changes to be made to libc.
I have to admit, the -rc1 caught me a bit by surprise; I have a few patches pending that I want to send out today.
The question is, if we had to break glibc compatibility, shouldn't we use the opportunity to clean-up the syscall list? It was copied from MIPS and, thus, has inherited a lot of legacy from there. As a new architecture, maybe we should even go as far as removing all ni-syscalls and start fresh?
> On the other hand, if a decision is made to keep the broken interface, > it should at least be a conscious one instead of an oversight.
I will try out your patch and see if there are any obvious problems.
Thanks, ~Chris - 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/
| |