From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: microblaze syscall list Date: Sat, 03 May 2008 08:56:56 -0700 Message-ID: <481C8B48.5020306@redhat.com> References: <87a5b0800804220513t75690ceao938a288596b5ad0c@mail.gmail.com> <481ACE51.80202@seznam.cz> <481BE0E4.7010904@petalogix.com> <200805031116.50236.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:59629 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757512AbYECP63 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 May 2008 11:58:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <200805031116.50236.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: John Williams , monstr@seznam.cz, Matthew Wilcox , Will Newton , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, git@xilinx.com, Stephen Neuendorffer , John Linn -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Uli: The question at hand is what syscalls a new linux architecture > should implement. To take utimes() as an example, the kernel currentl= y > has utime(), utimes(), futimesat() and utimensat(), while glibc > provides utime(), utimes(), futimes(), futimesat(), futimens() and > utimensat(). In theory, all the glibc interfaces could be provided > on top of the utimensat() syscall, but should they? Yes, this is how it should be. It's not done because no architecture glibc officially supports arrived after these and similar syscalls arrived. There is no need to implement the not-*at interface, no need to implement the creat syscall, etc etc. - -- =E2=9E=A7 Ulrich Drepper =E2=9E=A7 Red Hat, Inc. =E2=9E=A7 444 Castro S= t =E2=9E=A7 Mountain View, CA =E2=9D=96 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIHItI2ijCOnn/RHQRAm+9AJ4zGHVzNxgt9Zbrf0Uj27n4AQH6LACfVpIC qYnU0uBg3he4hKx0cujQQ7U=3D =3DozRC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----