From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>,
arnd@arndb.de, geert@linux-m68k.org, acme@redhat.com,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sys_recvmmsg: wire up or not?
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:33:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100114093322.GA3484@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1263452379.724.348.camel@pasglop>
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:59:39PM +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Oh I definitely agree that a direct syscall is better, and I wonder in
> fact if I should add new syscalls in addition to socketcall for powerpc,
> for glibc to do a slow migration :-) I was just wondering about the
> inconsistency for archs like us who have socketcall today, to also have
> to define the syscall ...
On ARM, we used to use socketcall exclusively. We've since added all
the direct socket and IPC calls to our syscall table as part of the
big EABI shakeup. They certainly get used on EABI, whereas OABI has
a choice.
They were made available in two stages - first the numbers were reserved
and the calls were added to the call table. A few years later, we
exposed the syscall numbers in unistd.h.
It's now been almost 4 years since this was done, and there have been
no bug reports.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of:
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-14 9:37 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
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 [this message]
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=20100114093322.GA3484@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=acme@redhat.com \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=davem@davemloft.net \
--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).