Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Sep 2004 23:22:44 +0200 | From | Herbert Poetzl <> | Subject | Re: `new' syscalls for m68k |
| |
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 10:48:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > On Gwe, 2004-09-10 at 21:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > - Are sys_sched_[gs]etaffinity() needed for non-SMP? > Not really > > > - I disabled [sg]et_thread_area() since sys_[gs]et_thread_area() are > > missing. Do we have to implement them, or should we use some other > > method for Thread Local Storage? > > Up to your implementation > > > - What about sys_vserver()?
I would be happy to add a syscall reservation to the list of already reserved syscalls for i386, x86_64, s390, sparc/64, sh3/4, ppc/64 and mips * ...
> Vserver project - probably dead for 2.6 since the SELinux and other > security modules can implement this same things (and a 2.6 vserver one > assumes would do likewise)
sorry, SELinux and friends can and do not even remotely implement the same functionality, and linux-vserver for 2.6 is working fine ...
best, Herbert
> > - What about sys_kexec_load()? > > Depends if you support kexec > > > - > 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/ - 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/
| |