Re: missing syscalls

[Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 10:19:29PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:09:47PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> It's a stupid script so it is easy to fool.
> The following patch makes x86_64 shut up:
> 
> diff --git a/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h b/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h
> index c5f596e..6f73918 100644
> --- a/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h
> +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h
> @@ -620,6 +620,9 @@ __SYSCALL(__NR_vmsplice, sys_vmsplice)
>  #define __NR_move_pages		279
>  __SYSCALL(__NR_move_pages, sys_move_pages)
>  
> +#define __NR_getcpu             /* 318 - not relevant */
> +#define __NR_epoll_pwait        /* 319 - not relevant */
> +

If a syscall is not relevant, define __IGNORE_getcpu etc instead.

-- 
Russell King
 Linux kernel    2.6 ARM Linux   - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
 maintainer of: