From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:52853 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965026AbXDAUoL (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Apr 2007 16:44:11 -0400 Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:44:10 -0600 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: Re: missing syscalls Message-ID: <20070401204410.GC826@parisc-linux.org> References: <20070401191511.GA24987@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20070401.122345.123969742.davem@davemloft.net> <20070401200947.GB826@parisc-linux.org> <20070401.131619.94554745.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070401.131619.94554745.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 01:16:19PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Matthew Wilcox > Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:09:47 -0600 > > > 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? > > The whole idea is for the arch's to just find out that a new syscall > exists when someone adds a new one and some tries a build on that > platform the next time. If the arch's still have to do work then the > whole exercise is pointless. By and large, the missing syscalls are older ones, eg socketcall or utime, and they tend to be missing for good reason. I think it's entirely appropriate that the arch has to do work when a new syscall is added -- either implement it, or state that it's not supposed to be implemented.