From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:16:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] [PATCH] Add key management syscalls to non-i386 archs Message-Id: <7779.1098288977@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <20041020154922.GV16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <3506.1098283455@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20041020154922.GV16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, discuss@x86-64.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@m17n.org, linux-390@vm.marist.edu, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org > Um, no. Should be ENTRY_COMP() if there's compat syscalls. Not all archs (of which PA-Risc is an example) seem to require the same fixups on the same syscalls. In some instances, the upper half of the register is implicitly zero on 32-bit syscall entry to a 64-bit kernel. In such cases, none of my syscalls require fixing up, assuming the pointers are automatically correct. > And those particular syscall numbers have already been assigned (blame Linus > for dropping the PA-RISC patch on the floor instead of including it in > 2.6.9). There's not a lot I can do about that, except wave a patch under Linus's nose and see who complains. Can you allocate three syscall numbers for me for parisc? David