From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752693AbZHXOuP (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:50:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752668AbZHXOuN (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:50:13 -0400 Received: from 124x34x33x190.ap124.ftth.ucom.ne.jp ([124.34.33.190]:33413 "EHLO master.linux-sh.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752601AbZHXOuM (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:50:12 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 23:50:11 +0900 From: Paul Mundt To: Jason Baron Cc: Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, jiayingz@google.com, mbligh@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/12] update FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX Message-ID: <20090824145011.GA20517@linux-sh.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Mundt , Jason Baron , Frederic Weisbecker , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@elte.hu, laijs@cn.fujitsu.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, peterz@infradead.org, mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca, jiayingz@google.com, mbligh@google.com, lizf@cn.fujitsu.com References: <7fca984182691041c0d139eccd080f82045f86f7.1249932670.git.jbaron@redhat.com> <20090811110023.GC4938@nowhere> <20090824134151.GB18974@linux-sh.org> <20090824140629.GA2656@redhat.com> <20090824141539.GA19978@linux-sh.org> <20090824144228.GB2656@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090824144228.GB2656@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:42:28AM -0400, Jason Baron wrote: > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 11:15:39PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:06:29AM -0400, Jason Baron wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 10:41:52PM +0900, Paul Mundt wrote: > > > > I hope you can clarify what the meaning of this is supposed to be > > > > exactly. Is this number supposed to be the last usable syscall, or is it > > > > supposed to be the equivalent of NR_syscalls? > > > > > > > > > > I am using as the equivalent of NR_syscalls. > > > > > NR_syscalls has always been the total number of system calls, not the > > last one. > > > > > > Presently on SH we have this as NR_syscalls - 1, while on s390 I see it > > > > is treated as NR_syscalls directly. s390 opencodes the NR_syscalls > > > > directly and so presently blows up in -next due to a missing > > > > FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX definition: > > > > > > > > http://kisskb.ellerman.id.au/kisskb/buildresult/1120523/ > > > > > > > > I was in the process of fixing that up when I noticed this difference. > > > > x86 seems to also treat this as NR_syscalls - 1, but that looks to me > > > > like there is an off-by-1 in arch_init_ftrace_syscalls() causing the last > > > > syscall to be skipped? > > > > > > I don't see how its used as 'NR_syscalls - 1' on x86, > > > arch_init_ftrace_syscalls() does: > > > > > > for (i = 0; i < FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX; i++) { > > > meta = find_syscall_meta(psys_syscall_table[i]); > > > syscalls_metadata[i] = meta; > > > } > > > > > > So the last syscall should not be skipped. > > > > > > > In today's -next: > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > > # define FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX 299 > > #else > > # define FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX 337 > > #endif > > > > unistd_32.h: > > > > #define __NR_reflinkat 337 > > > > unistd_64.h: > > > > #define __NR_reflinkat 299 > > > > The first syscall starts at 0, but I don't see how this last syscall is > > handled. If there were a __NR_syscalls 300 and 338 respectively, that > > would seem to do the right thing. Or am I missing something? > > No, you are right. When I changed the FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX to 299, and > 337, there was no reflinkat syscall in the tree. So, it was equivalent > to NR_syscalls at that point in time. So that's where the confusion is. > > Clearly, all the more reason to drop FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX and change to > NR_syscalls... > If FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX is dropped then s390 will be fixed, and I'll take care of the sh update. If you want to hold off on adding NR_syscalls back to x86, then s390 will need a #define FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX __NR_syscalls in arch/s390/include/asm/ftrace.h. Keeping FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX around seems to be asking for trouble, though (although I don't know what the original rationale behind adding it was).