lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: sys_kcmp (was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: add finit_module syscall to ARM)
    On Sat, 22 Sep 2012 14:20:46 +0100 Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:

    > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 03:45:49PM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
    > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 12:56:42PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
    > > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
    > > > > That brings up another question though - when was kcmp added to x86, and
    > > > > why aren't we getting notifications from checksyscalls.sh that ARM hasn't
    > > > > been updated?
    > > > >
    > > > > It seems to be that the script was broken, and no one has noticed.
    > > >
    > > > It seems Heiko did notice: http://www.serverphorums.com/read.php?12,559093
    > > >
    > > > Now, I'm a bit puzzled by what follows: Heiko proposes a patch to
    > > > ignore sys_kcmp,
    > > > as it's x86-specific, which is acked by Cyrill. Then it suddenly
    > >
    > > hpa@ pointed that better approach is to implement kcmp on other archs
    > > after i've acked the patch. so then Heiko provided a patch for s390.
    >
    > I discussed with hpa yesterday, and it seems the situation is as follows:
    >
    > 1. There exists a patch to fix checksyscalls.sh, and it's allegedly sitting
    > in akpm's tree, and no one knows why it's just sitting there and hasn't
    > been merged upstream.

    People sometimes just reply to my commit emails, ignoring the
    reply-to:lkml and the "Before you just go and hit reply" request. I could
    start cc'ing the lists like tip-bot, but that seems a bit noisy.

    > 2. There allegedly exists a patch to remove x86isms from sys_kcmp -
    > allegedly also in akpm's tree. However, I've looked through the code in
    > mainline, and nothing stands out. Ralf Beachle also said yesterday that
    > he has looked through from the MIPS PoV and also can't see any x86isms,
    > so we're both thinking that it should merely have the x86 dependency
    > removed.

    http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/syscalls-make-kcmp-syscall-available-for-all-architectures.patch

    I have that queued for 3.7. There is of course a little risk here. We
    do have a test in tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/ - I suggest that arch
    people run it! In fact all the tools/testing/selftests should execute
    successfully on all architectures - if not, please let's fix things
    up.

    > 3. Until the x86 dependency is gone (that depends on what akpm proposes to
    > do with the patches he's allegedly sitting on), non-x86 arches can only
    > reserve the syscall, and add an IGNORE for it.
    >
    > Maybe akpm can provide some input to this thread, and let us know what the
    > intentions are for checksyscalls.sh and kernel/kcmp.c, and whether he does
    > indeed have outstanding patches for these.
    >
    > It would be good to at least get checksyscalls.sh fixed so arch maintainers
    > get their warnings for new syscalls back.

    http://ozlabs.org/~akpm/mmotm/broken-out/checksyscalls-fix-here-document-handling.patch

    I had it queued for 3.7. I now see that was a mistake and I'll get it
    into 3.6.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-09-22 21:21    [W:0.026 / U:1.192 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site