Re: sys_kcmp (was: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: add finit_module syscall to ARM)

Cyrill Gorcunov
2012-09-22T15:37:51Z

On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 03:38:47PM +0200, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 02:20:46PM +0100, Russell King wrote:
>
> > 2. There allegedly exists a patch to remove x86isms from sys_kcmp -
> > allegedly also in akpm's tree. However, I've looked through the code in
> > mainline, and nothing stands out. Ralf Beachle also said yesterday that
> > he has looked through from the MIPS PoV and also can't see any x86isms,
> > so we're both thinking that it should merely have the x86 dependency
> > removed.
> >
> > 3. Until the x86 dependency is gone (that depends on what akpm proposes to
> > do with the patches he's allegedly sitting on), non-x86 arches can only
> > reserve the syscall, and add an IGNORE for it.
>
> There is a weak definition provided in kernel/sys_ni.c so it actually can
> be properly wired up in preparation for the day when the dependency in
> Kconfig gets fixed.
>
> > It would be good to at least get checksyscalls.sh fixed so arch maintainers
> > get their warnings for new syscalls back.
>
> Indeed. That script has become just too important.

These are the patches from linux-next/akpm

commit 6dfc4cffd24b0c7dc04ca36471a4a6b2a9fc1377
Author: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri Sep 21 11:01:56 2012 +1000

syscalls: make kcmp syscall available for all architectures

commit 7f36f199e958ce7009285cd887323cb222ed6b1e
Author: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>
Date: Fri Sep 21 10:57:07 2012 +1000

checksyscalls: fix "here document" handling

So I guess this tree in a good shape just checksyscalls.sh fix should
go upstream, right?