From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Mundt Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2010 06:14:18 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh_net: Do not implement socketcall, use specific syscalls. Message-Id: <20100902061418.GG10947@linux-sh.org> List-Id: References: <1283305771-31182-2-git-send-email-carmelo.amoroso@st.com> In-Reply-To: <1283305771-31182-2-git-send-email-carmelo.amoroso@st.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 06:27:41AM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Mundt [mailto:lethal@linux-sh.org] > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 4:54 AM > To: Carmelo AMOROSO > Cc: linux-sh@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] sh_net: Do not implement socketcall, use specific syscalls. > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 03:57:09AM +0200, Carmelo AMOROSO wrote: > > Socket syscalls entries are now available in the syscall table, > > so it does not need to implement the multipler syscall. > > It is mapped into the sys_ni_syscall. > > > I don't see how we can make this sort of change safely, it's part of the > existing ABI. Going forward we can gradually migrate people over to using > the broken out syscalls directly, but we will need to maintain > compatability with old binaries almost indefinitely. > > Hi Paul, > I understand your point regarding the backward compatibility, you're right in keeping > the socketcall implemented, but I think we should add the broken-out syscalls, so an > updated version of the C library could make use of them. > Agreed, I had thought about doing this before but I didn't have the time to look in to what was needed on the libc side. If other people are taking care of this, I'm of course more than happy to add them in on the kernel side.