Re: Add private syscalls to support NPTL

Maxim Kuvyrkov
2009-08-18T09:36:57Z

Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:56, Maxim Kuvyrkov<maxim@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>> Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim@codesourcery.com> writes:
>>>> The need would be (a) use numbers that are very unlikely to used for
>>>> normal syscalls,
>>> I don't understand. These are normal syscalls.
>>>
>>>> and (b) using -1..-4 for the syscall numbers works out quite nicely
>>>> for the code in entry.S. It adds just a couple of instructions to the
>>>> execution path.
>>> Those additional instructions are totally unnecessary.
>> Hm, I though it would be preferable to keep syscalls that are specific to
>> m68k (in the sense that no other target requires them) separate from the
>> ones implementing standard unix/linux functionality.
>>
>> If the consensus is that the new syscalls should received 331..334 numbers,
>> that would only simplify the implementation.
>
> I prefer to just add them at the bottom of the list.
>
> (slowly recovering from my backlog) I noticed some new syscalls got
> added recently:
>
> | <stdin>:1515:2: warning: #warning syscall rt_tgsigqueueinfo not implemented
> | <stdin>:1519:2: warning: #warning syscall perf_counter_open not implemented
>
> Probably I should wire those up first (for 2.6.31, if still possible).
>
> Next I should reserve 333..336 for you?

That's fine, thank you. I'll follow up with an updated patch in couple
of days.

--
Maxim