From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2) Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:13:22 +0000 Message-ID: <201204041213.22333.arnd@arndb.de> References: <20120401125741.GA7484@p183.telecom.by> <201204011921.59596.arnd@arndb.de> <4F78D141.4070609@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Alexey Dobriyan , akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, drepper@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F78D141.4070609@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Sunday 01 April 2012, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 04/01/2012 12:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sunday 01 April 2012, Alexey Dobriyan wrote: > >> arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl | 1 + > >> arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl | 1 + > >> fs/Makefile | 1 + > >> fs/nextfd.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> include/linux/syscalls.h | 1 + > >> 5 files changed, 31 insertions(+) > > > > I don't have any comments on the syscall itself, but when you add one, please > > also make the change to include/asm-generic/unistd.h so it appears in the > > various architectures using the generic syscall table. > > Arnd: do you have any interest in leveraging the syscall scripts I did > for x86? I have tried to make them as generic as possible, with the > hope of getting more and more of syscall information into more easily > processed form. Sounds interesting, but I'm not planning to do the changes myself, especially since I have no machine that actually uses the generic syscall table. Maybe I should ask the next person who submits a new architecture to do that work, that's usually how progress in asm-generic happens these days ;-) Arnd