From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262417AbVC3TNM (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:13:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262407AbVC3TKh (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:10:37 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:24218 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262383AbVC3TGL (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Mar 2005 14:06:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:05:09 -0800 From: Greg KH To: blaisorblade@yahoo.it Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, stable@kernel.org, jdike@addtoit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [stable] [patch 3/8] uml: quick fix syscall table [urgent] Message-ID: <20050330190509.GA17602@kroah.com> References: <20050330173348.63741EFE76@zion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050330173348.63741EFE76@zion> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:33:48PM +0200, blaisorblade@yahoo.it wrote: > > CC: > > *) Uml 2.6.11 does not compile with gcc 2.95.4 because some entries are > duplicated, and that GCC does not accept this (unlike gcc 3). Plus various > other bugs in the syscall table definitions: > > *) 223 is a syscall hole (i.e. ni_syscall) only on i386, on x86_64 it's a > valid syscall (thus a duplicated one). > > *) __NR_vserver must be only once with sys_ni_syscall, and not multiple > times with different values! > > *) syscalls duplicated in SUBARCHs and in common files (thus assigning twice > to the same array entry and causing the GCC 2.95.4 failure mentioned above): > sys_utimes, which is common, and sys_fadvise64_64, sys_statfs64, > sys_fstatfs64, which exist only on i386. > > *) syscalls duplicated in each SUBARCH, to put in common files: > sys_remap_file_pages, sys_utimes, sys_fadvise64 > > *) 285 is a syscall hole (i.e. ni_syscall) only on i386, on x86_64 the range > does not arrive to that point. > > *) on x86_64, the macro name is __NR_kexec_load and not __NR_sys_kexec_load. > Use the correct name in either case. > > Note: as you can see, part of the syscall table definition in UML is > arch-independent (with everywhere defined syscalls), and part is > arch-dependant. This has created confusion (some syscalls are listed in both > places, some in the wrong one, some are wrong on one arch or another). > > Also, as add-ons: > > *) uses __va_copy instead of va_copy since some old versions of gcc (2.95.4 > for instance) don't accept va_copy. > > *) some whitespace cleanups in the syscall table (if you don't like them, feel > free to remove them). For this to be considered for the -stable tree, can you remove the whitespace cleanups, and break this up into different patches for the different things you are doing (one thing per patch please.) thanks, greg k-h