Re: Add private syscalls to support NPTL

Maxim Kuvyrkov
2009-08-18T08:56:09Z

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.

--
Maxim