Re: [PATCH] cris: Wire up missing syscalls

[Jesper Nilsson <jesper.nilsson@axis.com>]

On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:36:47PM +0200, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 06:20 PM, Jesper Nilsson wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:48:12PM +0200, Chen Gang wrote:
> >> The related warnings:
> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com>
> > Thanks and applied, sorry for the long delay, I had to rewrite the patch a bit
> > since the v10 and v32 does not have the same standard in prefixing underscores.
> > Also, to be safe I also bumped the NR_syscalls as below.
> > 
> 
> Oh, it doesn't matter, everyone's time resources are expensive, so I
> should/can understand your delay response.

Thanks for understanding.

> Sorry for my carelessness: use "_sys*", and keep original NR_syscalls no
> touch. And also 3 additional things I guess we may need a look:
> 
>  - For v10, need we also use "sys*" instead of "_sys*"?

No, the trick here is that v10 and v32 uses different standards
with regards to prefixing underscore. I'm hoping to fix that someday.

>  - Most archs do not implement seccomp and bpf, which can pass building,
>    but will return -ENOSYS during running. Need we left them still as
>    warnings? (I guess, it depends on the maintainer's taste).

Well, I don't have any strong feelings in either direction. :-)

>  - In the latest next tree, it also add additional userfaultfd syscall,
>    need we add it, too?

Hm, haven't seen that syscall, I'm guessing it's in linux-next?

/^JN - Jesper Nilsson
-- 
               Jesper Nilsson -- jesper.nilsson@axis.com