Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 5 Dec 2002 09:03:03 -0800 (PST) | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |