From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:20:24 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: [PATCH] consolidate shmat usage Message-ID: <20050405202024.GQ16601@linux-mips.org> References: <20050323150123.1a78e9c4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20050323174810.17df4440.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20050323145132.GJ21986@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050405180132.15e386cd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20050405130312.GC16157@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050405211619.A19117@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050405211619.A19117@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> To: Matthew Wilcox , Stephen Rothwell , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:16:19PM +0100, Russell King wrote: > glibc probably doesn't use the new sys_shmat() syscall yet - it's a > relatively recent addition, so I think we have the opportunity to fix > it if needs be. > > However, I don't know the glibc sources well enough to comment on the > state of play there. And what's more, I don't know any active ARM > glibc folk to ask about it. Sorry. > > (For the record, I've never been interested in glibc myself, and I've > always hoped that there would be someone else to look after that side > of things. However, it appears that this stance hasn't really resulted > in a long lasting ARM glibc effort. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see > _any_ signs out there which indicate otherwise.) Since you already kept me on the cc list ;-) ARM libc seems to use the good old wrapper syscall. Ralf