lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] compatibility syscall layer (lets try again)


On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, george anzinger wrote:
>
> I think this covers all the bases. It builds boots and
> runs. I haven't tested nano_sleep to see if it does the
> right thing yet...

Well, it definitely doesn't, since at least this test is the wrong way
around (as well as being against the coding style whitespace rules ;-p):

+ if ( ! current_thread_info()->restart_block.fun){
+ return current_thread_info()->restart_block.fun(&parm);

Also, I would suggest against having a NULL pointer, and instead just
initializing it with a function that sets it to an error return (don't use
ENOSYS, since the system call _does_ exist, and ENOSYS is what old kernels
would return if you do it by hand by mistake. I'd suggest -EINTR, since
that will "DoTheRightThing(tm)" if we somehow get confused).

Linus

-
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 13:31    [W:0.501 / U:24.936 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site