From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030522AbXCVLlZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:41:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030580AbXCVLlY (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:41:24 -0400 Received: from pasmtpb.tele.dk ([80.160.77.98]:60027 "EHLO pasmtpB.tele.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030522AbXCVLlY (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2007 07:41:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 12:41:44 +0100 From: Sam Ravnborg To: David Woodhouse Cc: Andrew Morton , Kees Cook , Randy Dunlap , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc4-mm1 Message-ID: <20070322114144.GA29453@uranus.ravnborg.org> References: <20070319205623.299d0378.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070320103151.f65c81b6.randy.dunlap@oracle.com> <20070320192016.GC22797@outflux.net> <20070320214714.0e584cd4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070321115955.GA18195@uranus.ravnborg.org> <1174555020.20505.89.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1174555020.20505.89.camel@pmac.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 09:17:00AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 12:59 +0100, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > > I will give it a shot tonight. > > Thanks. I'll delete the syscalls-2.6.git tree now that you have it. > > > One issue I have with current approach is that the ARCH specific > > things are in a single .h file. > > Que? There aren't really any arch-specific things, except for a list of > syscalls to be ignored which are i386-specific. That's because we're > pulling in the 'master' system call list from asm-i386/unistd.h, and we > need to exclude some of those which we don't really need on other > architectures. Yep - realized this when I took a closer look. One thing striked my mind. It is correct that new things gets added to i386 first these days? To me it looks like x86_64 is growing larger than i386 among the developers these days so using asm-x86_64/unistd.h could be a better choice? Sam