From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: sys_recvmmsg: wire up or not? Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:20:33 +1100 Message-ID: <1263442833.724.325.camel@pasglop> References: <10f740e80912260239n17bbbd08w6c3065c12bde9c95@mail.gmail.com> <200912261212.14264.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200912261212.14264.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux/m68k List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org > 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:35698 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751386Ab0ANEVJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:21:09 -0500 Subject: Re: sys_recvmmsg: wire up or not? From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <200912261212.14264.arnd@arndb.de> References: <10f740e80912260239n17bbbd08w6c3065c12bde9c95@mail.gmail.com> <200912261212.14264.arnd@arndb.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:20:33 +1100 Message-ID: <1263442833.724.325.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux/m68k Message-ID: <20100114042033.nAsCzCtFaap330RLhLxHsa9XpO_jQHFIcCDeffPEZT8@z> > 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.