From: Russell King <rmk@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>
Cc: Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 10:00:59 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20011225100059.A7424@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3C277049.3070000@redhat.com> <31754.1009246706@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <31754.1009246706@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au>; from kaos@ocs.com.au on Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 01:18:26PM +1100
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 01:18:26PM +1100, Keith Owens wrote:
> i386 dynamic syscall table starts at 240. Last assigned syscall entry
> is currently 225, leaving room for 14 new assigned syscalls. 2.4.0
> (January 5 2001) had 222 syscalls, so 2.4 added 3 assigned syscalls in
> just under a year.
Erm, there's a rather obvious flaw in your argument here - 2.4 is supposed
to be a stable kernel with relatively few features appearing in it. We're
now into 2.5. We've already seen several people trying to get new syscall
numbers between 2.5.0 and 2.5.1, which is also a relatively short
timeframe.
Lets look at some more realistic timeframe. These figures are for i386:
2.2.20 - 190 syscalls, last one is sys_vfork
2.4.17 - 225 syscalls, last one is sys_readahead
So, between these two stable kernel series, _35_ syscalls have been added.
If we assume this trend will continue through 2.5, then we'll be up to
260 syscalls when 2.6 or 3.0 is out.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-12-25 10:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-22 11:28 [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing Keith Owens
2001-12-22 14:12 ` Alan Cox
2001-12-22 14:32 ` Keith Owens
2001-12-22 19:01 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2001-12-22 23:18 ` Keith Owens
2001-12-22 23:25 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2001-12-23 0:02 ` Keith Owens
2001-12-23 4:04 ` Chris Vandomelen
2001-12-23 5:10 ` Keith Owens
2001-12-23 17:06 ` Benjamin LaHaise
2001-12-23 19:15 ` Davide Libenzi
2001-12-24 1:01 ` Keith Owens
2001-12-24 16:52 ` Doug Ledford
2001-12-24 17:11 ` Alan Cox
2001-12-24 17:06 ` Doug Ledford
2001-12-24 17:34 ` David Lang
2001-12-24 18:13 ` Doug Ledford
2001-12-24 17:54 ` David Lang
2001-12-24 18:23 ` Doug Ledford
2001-12-26 16:22 ` Riley Williams
2001-12-25 2:18 ` Keith Owens
2001-12-25 10:00 ` Russell King [this message]
2001-12-24 18:23 ` Alan Cox
2001-12-24 18:16 ` Doug Ledford
2001-12-24 19:05 ` Alan Cox
2001-12-24 19:31 ` Russell King
2001-12-24 20:46 ` Alan Cox
2001-12-24 23:28 ` Edgar Toernig
2001-12-24 23:43 ` Andreas Steinmetz
2001-12-22 20:51 ` Davide Libenzi
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-12-22 11:35 Keith Owens
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=20011225100059.A7424@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=bcrl@redhat.com \
--cc=david.lang@digitalinsight.com \
--cc=dledford@redhat.com \
--cc=kaos@ocs.com.au \
--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