From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Ungerer Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k: Merge mmu and non-mmu versions of sys_call_table Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:26:32 +1000 Message-ID: <4DAD7F78.9010308@snapgear.com> References: <201104172213.01258.arnd@arndb.de> <4DAD1062.2020309@snapgear.com> <201104191021.20293.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201104191021.20293.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux/m68k , uClinux list Hi Arnd, On 19/04/11 18:21, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 19 April 2011, Greg Ungerer wrote: >> On 18/04/11 06:13, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >>> If so, what are these >>> syscalls supposed to do in that case? I assume that they don't actually >>> change the physical location of a virtual address. >>> >>> Since the unistd.h file is shared with m68k, I see nothing wrong here, >>> they should simply get stubbed out like the other NOMMU syscalls (swapon, >>> mprotect, msync, ...) >> >> I have no objection to changing these to be sys_ni_syscall for the >> CONFIG_MMU=n case of m68k. I am pretty sure they will never have >> been used in any way on m68knommu systems. (It does look like uClibc >> for example does support these even on no-mmu systems though. I just >> don't think they will have actually been used by anyone). > > They are already sys_ni_syscall, by means of kernel/sys_ni.c. > I wouldn't bother changing them. The real question is whether > you should define the __NR_* macros for the syscalls that are > not provided. For a new architecture I think you should not, > but removing them might cause regressions. Then again, it's > probably very useful to match the unistd.h file with the system > call table. Ok, then it looks like we don't need the long redefine list for the non-mmu case in Geert's original patch.Those that are not implemented by the non-mmu build will just end up being sys_ni_syscall anyway. I built (and run tested) that for m68knommu targets, removing the redefine list - expect for sys_mmap2/sys_mmap_pgoff - and that of course works fine. Regards Greg ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Greg Ungerer -- Principal Engineer EMAIL: gerg@snapgear.com SnapGear Group, McAfee PHONE: +61 7 3435 2888 8 Gardner Close FAX: +61 7 3217 5323 Milton, QLD, 4064, Australia WEB: http://www.SnapGear.com