public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wieland Gmeiner <e8607062@student.tuwien.ac.at>
To: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: Wieland Gmeiner <e8607062@student.tuwien.ac.at>
Subject: System call registration mess?
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2005 03:18:32 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1121217512.17472.93.camel@w2> (raw)

I want to register a new system call and notice that on several
architectures there is some inconsistency between the system call table
and unistd.h, e.g. (2.6.13-rc2):

in arch/arm/kernel/calls.S:
...
/* 310 */       .long   sys_request_key
                .long   sys_keyctl
                .long   sys_semtimedop
__syscall_end:
...

and in include/asm-arm/unistd.h:
...
#define __NR_request_key                (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+310)
#define __NR_keyctl                     (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+311)

#if 0 /* reserved for un-muxing ipc */
#define __NR_semtimedop                 (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+312)
#endif

#define __NR_vserver                    (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+313)

/*
 * The following SWIs are ARM private.
 */
#define __ARM_NR_BASE                   (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+0x0f0000)
...


So it seems that sys_vserver is not declared in the system call table.
Is there any reason for this inconsistency or is this a bug and should
be fixed? If second, should there be something like
.long       sys_ni_syscall           /* reserved for vserver */
 or
.long       sys_vserver
in the syscall table?

Similar inconsistencies can be found in other architecture subtrees,
e.g. in arm26:

arch/arm26/kernel/calls.S:
...
/* 235 */       .long   sys_removexattr
                .long   sys_lremovexattr
                .long   sys_fremovexattr
                .long   sys_tkill
__syscall_end:
...

in include/asm-arm26/unistd.h there is a whole bunch of calls that are
not registered in the system call table:

#define __NR_tkill                      (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+238)
#define __NR_sendfile64                 (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+239)
#define __NR_futex                      (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+240)
...
#define __NR_mq_notify                  (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+278)
#define __NR_mq_getsetattr              (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+279)
#define __NR_waitid                     (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE+280)

Should they all get filled up with sys_ni_syscall definitions or with 
their corresponding entries so I can enter my own syscall at the bottom
with correct numbering or what is the proper way to register a new 
syscall in these cases?

Thanks,
Wieland


                 reply	other threads:[~2005-07-13  1:18 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1121217512.17472.93.camel@w2 \
    --to=e8607062@student.tuwien.ac.at \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox