Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Mar 2007 17:38:05 +0100 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Complain about missing system calls. |
| |
On Fri, 2007-03-09 17:11:10 +0100, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote: > David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> writes: > > Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch > > automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is > > implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled. > > On PowerPC at the moment, for example, it results in these warnings: > > init/missing_syscalls.h:935:3: warning: #warning syscall sync_file_range not implemented > > init/missing_syscalls.h:947:3: warning: #warning syscall getcpu not implemented > > init/missing_syscalls.h:950:3: warning: #warning syscall epoll_pwait not implemented > > I think a better solution would be to finally switch to auto generated > system call tables for newer system calls. The original reason why the > architectures have different system call numbers -- compatibility with > another "native" Unix -- is completely obsolete now. This leaves only > minor differences of compat stub vs non compat stub and a few > architecture specific calls. > > Of course the existing syscall numbers can't be changed, but for all new > calls one could just add automatically for everybody. > > A global table with two entries (compat and non compat) and a per arch > override table should be sufficient.
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example, for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of on-stack longwords for the call.
So if something "new" is coming up, please keep in mind that it should be flexible enough to represent that. :)
MfG, JBG
-- Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481 Signature of: "really soon now": an unspecified period of time, likly to the second : be greater than any reasonable definition of "soon". [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |