Re: [PATCH] introduce kernel_execve function to replace __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__

Jeff Dike
2006-08-22T15:38:30Z

On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 05:13:39PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> No, that's not what I was referring to. I was thinking of the calls:
>
> arch/um/os-Linux/process.c:inline _syscall0(pid_t, getpid)
> arch/um/os-Linux/sys-i386/tls.c:static _syscall1(int, get_thread_area, user_desc_t *, u_info);
> arch/um/os-Linux/tls.c:static _syscall1(int, get_thread_area, user_desc_t *, u_info);
> arch/um/os-Linux/tls.c:static _syscall1(int, set_thread_area, user_desc_t *, u_info);
> arch/um/sys-i386/unmap.c:static inline _syscall2(int,munmap,void *,start,size_t,len)
> arch/um/sys-i386/unmap.c:static inline _syscall6(void *,mmap2,void *,addr,size_t,len,int,prot,int,flags,int,fd,off_t,offset)
> arch/um/sys-x86_64/unmap.c:static inline _syscall2(int,munmap,void *,start,size_t,len)
> arch/um/sys-x86_64/unmap.c:static inline _syscall6(void *,mmap,void *,addr,size_t,len,int,prot,int,flags,int,fd,off_t,offset)
>
> Are these for calling the host OS or calling the UML kernel?
> If they are for the host, they can be implemented using syscall(),
> otherwise by calling the sys_* functions directly.

OK, these are all calling the host, and using syscall() instead sounds
reasonable.

Jeff