Re: 2.6.23 alpha unistd.h changes

[Oliver Falk <oliver@linux-kernel.at>]

On 09/17/2007 11:22 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
>> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
> 
> Why did your numbers differ from the numbers that were used in the 
> upstream kernel?

Afaik, our patch was done a while ago and nobody every submitted it
upstream - don't know why...

At AC, we follow RH/Fedora packages and there we had glibc-kernheaders -
where our patch originates. When the glibc/kernel packages changed and
glibc-kernheaders died, I patched the syscalls into kernel headers; Not
thinking that I better submit it upstream. :-(

> The Alpha maintainers (Cc's added) might now better what happened here.
> 
>> However, since 2.6.23 these syscall where added upstream, but with
>> different syscall numbers; What happens is the following:
>> ...
> 
> These syscalls were added in 2.6.22, not 2.6.23, and are therefore in 
> the officially released kernel since more than two months.

Yes, 2.6.22, I've just encountered the problem with 2.6.23...

> Changing a userspace ABI that has already been part of an officially 
> released kernel because someone patched other syscall numbers into his 
> private kernel doesn't sound like a good solution.

As I wrote in my previous mail, that's true, but if Debian folks haven't
recompiled glibc against the new headers we can change it without
breaking something...

-of