Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Same syscall is defined to different numbers on 3 different archs(was Re: Makefile issue) | From | Andi Kleen <> | Date | 07 Apr 2003 17:54:39 +0200 |
| |
"Robert Williamson" <robbiew@us.ibm.com> writes: > > Obviously, we could add additional code to check for the running arch and > define the syscall accordingly, however I'm not sure this is the correct > way to go. I'm copying our list, as well as the kernel mailing list about > this, because I "think" the system calls should be defined to the same > numbers across all architectures....but I'm not positive. BTW, I attached
No. Linux has traditionally used different syscall numbers for different architectures. The original ports (alpha etc.) always used the syscall numbers of the "native" Unix, so the numbering was often completely different. Newer ports who weren't concered about such compatibility often did a renumbering too. For example x86-64 has a completely new "cache line optimized" ordering.
What should work on most architectures is (most = someone told me it doesn't work properly on IA64)
#include </path/to/kernel/source/include/asm-<arch>/unistd.h> (you need the version in the kernel source because many glibc packagers in their infinite wisdom use an old outdated copy of asm/ usually from the last stable kernel only)
_syscallN(...)
-Andi - 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/
| |