Re: Add private syscalls to support NPTL

[Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim@codesourcery.com>]

Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim@codesourcery.com> writes:
> 
>> The need would be (a) use numbers that are very unlikely to used for
>> normal syscalls,
> 
> I don't understand.  These are normal syscalls.
> 
>> and (b) using -1..-4 for the syscall numbers works out quite nicely
>> for the code in entry.S.  It adds just a couple of instructions to the
>> execution path.
> 
> Those additional instructions are totally unnecessary.

Hm, I though it would be preferable to keep syscalls that are specific 
to m68k (in the sense that no other target requires them) separate from 
the ones implementing standard unix/linux functionality.

If the consensus is that the new syscalls should received 331..334 
numbers, that would only simplify the implementation.

--
Maxim