From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265400AbUEUGWk (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 02:22:40 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265405AbUEUGWk (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 02:22:40 -0400 Received: from cpe-24-221-190-179.ca.sprintbbd.net ([24.221.190.179]:46317 "EHLO myware.akkadia.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265400AbUEUGWi (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 02:22:38 -0400 Message-ID: <40AD9C5E.1020603@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 23:06:22 -0700 From: Ulrich Drepper Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8a) Gecko/20040519 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Morton CC: Jakub Jelinek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE futex op References: <20040520093817.GX30909@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040520155217.7afad53b.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040520155217.7afad53b.akpm@osdl.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.84.0.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > Is it safe to go adding a new argument to an existing syscall in this manner? Yes. This is a multiplexed syscall and the opcode decides which syscall parameter is used. > It'll work OK on x86 because of the stack layout but is the same true of > all other supported architectures? We add parameters at the end. This does not influence how previous values are passed. And especially for syscalls it makes no difference. -- ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖