From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: sys_recvmmsg: wire up or not?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:20:33 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1263442833.724.325.camel@pasglop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200912261212.14264.arnd@arndb.de>
> It's also rather inconsistent with the last socket call that was added, sys_accept4.
> Some architectures that normally define socket calls (parisc, sh) are missing both
> accept4 and recvmmsg, while others that don't have recvmsg now get recvmmsg.
>
> In particular, i386 has recvmmsg now, which caused the warning that you saw.
> I guess that one should be removed, and maybe we need a better logic for
> determining which syscalls you actually want. Deriving it from asm-generic/unistd.h
> instead of arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_32.h is probably better, but would still
> give the wrong answer for multiplexed system calls like socketcall or ipc on
> existing architectures.
Anything happening here ? We're getting that warning on ppc too despite
the fact that we use socketcall like x86... Should checksyscall be made
smarter or the syscall just removed from x86 ? :-)
Cheers,
Ben.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-14 4:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-26 10:39 sys_recvmmsg: wire up or not? Geert Uytterhoeven
2009-12-26 11:12 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-01-14 4:20 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt [this message]
2010-01-14 4:20 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-01-14 4:28 ` David Miller
2010-01-14 6:59 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-01-14 9:33 ` Russell King
2010-01-15 3:32 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
2010-01-19 7:21 ` Paul Mundt
2010-01-19 7:21 ` Paul Mundt
2010-01-19 23:14 ` Benjamin Herrenschmidt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1263442833.724.325.camel@pasglop \
--to=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).