From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Kuvyrkov Subject: Re: Add private syscalls to support NPTL Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:36:50 +0400 Message-ID: <4A8A7632.9030305@codesourcery.com> References: <4A89D037.7090807@codesourcery.com> <4A8A54F9.3080100@codesourcery.com> <4A8A6CA2.4040806@codesourcery.com> <10f740e80908180222p4d95b19bp3069e037a6bc590e@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]:46391 "EHLO mail.codesourcery.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750880AbZHRJg5 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 05:36:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <10f740e80908180222p4d95b19bp3069e037a6bc590e@mail.gmail.com> Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Geert Uytterhoeven Cc: Andreas Schwab , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:56, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> Andreas Schwab wrote: >>> Maxim Kuvyrkov 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: > > | :1515:2: warning: #warning syscall rt_tgsigqueueinfo not implemented > | :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