From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: microblaze syscall list Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:37:52 +0200 Message-ID: <200804242337.53681.arnd@arndb.de> References: <4988.7968-24314-1195487808-1209070282@seznam.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4988.7968-24314-1195487808-1209070282-9Vj9tDbzfuSlVyrhU4qvOw@public.gmane.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-arch-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-ID: To: Michal Simek Cc: Will Newton , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, git-gjFFaj9aHVfQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org, microblaze-uclinux-rVRm/Wmeqae7NGdpmJTKYQ@public.gmane.org On Thursday 24 April 2008, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi Arnd, > here is current syscall table - I only rewrite your changes. I remove sys_ni_syscall except from #ifdefs. > I would like to match syscalls to logical block. Can I do it? (I'll fix unistd.h later) yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. If we introduce a new asm-generic/unistd.h, it's good to have it sorted in some meaningful way, even if it is going to get messier over time. > Can you look at it if I remove old syscalls? > I will continue tomorrow I am tired. ok, I'll look at it tomorrow. > > #ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SIGNAL > .long sys_signal > #else > .long sys_ni_syscall > #endif > #ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_TIME > .long sys_time > .long sys_stime > #else > .long sys_ni_syscall > .long sys_ni_syscall > #endif I guess I wasn't entirely clear with what I mean referring to __ARCH_WANT_SYS_*. Instead of adding the #ifdef here, I meant you should just remove the call entirely. With a few exceptions that I already mentioned, the fact that there is an __ARCH_WANT check in the syscall definition means that new architectures should not reference the call, nor #define the __ARCH_WANT macro. Arnd <>< From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.183]:54083 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753589AbYDXViA (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:38:00 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: microblaze syscall list Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:37:52 +0200 References: <4988.7968-24314-1195487808-1209070282@seznam.cz> In-Reply-To: <4988.7968-24314-1195487808-1209070282@seznam.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-ID: <200804242337.53681.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Michal Simek Cc: Will Newton , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, git@xilinx.com, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au Message-ID: <20080424213752.ZkPilGIeAox6N3CvzhtSAnXpti4ORvB3ze9MTWXQORw@z> On Thursday 24 April 2008, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi Arnd, > here is current syscall table - I only rewrite your changes. I remove sys_ni_syscall except from #ifdefs. > I would like to match syscalls to logical block. Can I do it? (I'll fix unistd.h later) yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. If we introduce a new asm-generic/unistd.h, it's good to have it sorted in some meaningful way, even if it is going to get messier over time. > Can you look at it if I remove old syscalls? > I will continue tomorrow I am tired. ok, I'll look at it tomorrow. > > #ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SIGNAL > .long sys_signal > #else > .long sys_ni_syscall > #endif > #ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_TIME > .long sys_time > .long sys_stime > #else > .long sys_ni_syscall > .long sys_ni_syscall > #endif I guess I wasn't entirely clear with what I mean referring to __ARCH_WANT_SYS_*. Instead of adding the #ifdef here, I meant you should just remove the call entirely. With a few exceptions that I already mentioned, the fact that there is an __ARCH_WANT check in the syscall definition means that new architectures should not reference the call, nor #define the __ARCH_WANT macro. Arnd <><