From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:36044 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964828AbXDAUJs (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:09:48 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:09:47 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: missing syscalls Message-ID: <20070401200947.GB826@parisc-linux.org> References: <20070401160123.GA9178@uranus.ravnborg.org> <20070401191511.GA24987@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20070401.122345.123969742.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070401.122345.123969742.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: David Miller Cc: rmk@arm.linux.org.uk, sam@ravnborg.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 12:23:45PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > You should hook both of these syscalls up even if the config option > that enables them usually is not, or cannot currently be, enabled. > > The cond_syscall()'s will make sure they always link properly and > provide a -ENOSYS implementation. > > Hooking them up makes it easier to check future missed cases without > us having to add a plethora of ifdefs to the missing syscall checks > for each platform. I haven't looked at the missing syscall check implementation, but it seems like it's poorly designed if we have to add ifdefs for each arch. Why not allow arches a mechanism to state which syscalls they intentionally don't implement?