On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:51:32 +0000 Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am eventually aiming at consolidating (as much as possible of) > > sys_ipc and doing compat_sys_ipc. > > Great, but please remember not all architectures have a sys_ipc (looks > like alpha, ia64, parisc and x86_64 according to a fairly recent version > of glibc).
Yes, I understand that. > I don't see the need for a wrapper function in sys_parisc.c -- would > make sense to just call the sys_shmatcall() directly. I suspect the > same goes for Alpha's osf_shmat() function. I agree, I was just doing minimal changes first. > I dislike the naming here. The manpage for shmat is the three-argument > version. The only reason we have the four-argument version is because > of the silly sys_ipc multiplexer. So I think sys_shmat() should be > the three-argument form and we should rename the existing sys_shmat() > to something like ipc_shmat(). Does it need to be asmlinkage? OK, I have changed sys_shmat to sys_shmat4 and sys_shmatcall to sys_shmat. There are some architectures that use each of these directly as system calls. New version in following email. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.canb.auug.org.au/~sfr/
pgpygDhicmwKF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
