Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 7 May 2011 15:16:40 +0200 | From | Mikael Pettersson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] m68k: Merge mmu and non-mmu versions of sys_call_table |
| |
On Sat, 7 May 2011 10:34:25 +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 22:39, Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@it.uu.se> wrote: > > Geert Uytterhoeven writes: > > =C2=A0> On Thu, 5 May 2011, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > =C2=A0> > Did you check the macros in unistd to see if they match the > > =C2=A0> > actual table? I guess it would be a good time to comment out > > =C2=A0> > the ones that are not implemented in either of the two ABIs. > > =C2=A0> > > =C2=A0> Like this? > > =C2=A0> > > =C2=A0> warning: #warning syscall pselect6 not implemented > > =C2=A0> warning: #warning syscall ppoll not implemented > > =C2=A0> warning: #warning syscall recvmmsg not implemented > > =C2=A0> > > =C2=A0> Do we need pselect6 and ppoll? I have vague memories not requirin= > g it. > > > > They close user-space race conditions, so you want them. > > So do you recommend to backport the wiring up of pselect6/ppoll to -stable? > We always had their _NR_* defines, so I guess glibc was always compiled > with pselect6/ppoll support, and will use it if it's present.
Any kernel with working TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK should ideally also wire up pselect6/ppoll. But their omission is not a regression so backporting to 2.6.38 is probably sufficient.
/Mikael
| |