On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:09:47PM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 12:23:45PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > > You should hook both of these syscalls up even if the config option > > that enables them usually is not, or cannot currently be, enabled. > > > > The cond_syscall()'s will make sure they always link properly and > > provide a -ENOSYS implementation. > > > > Hooking them up makes it easier to check future missed cases without > > us having to add a plethora of ifdefs to the missing syscall checks > > for each platform. > > I haven't looked at the missing syscall check implementation, but it seems > like it's poorly designed if we have to add ifdefs for each arch. Why not > allow arches a mechanism to state which syscalls they intentionally > don't implement?
It's a stupid script so it is easy to fool. The following patch makes x86_64 shut up: diff --git a/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h b/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h index c5f596e..6f73918 100644 --- a/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h +++ b/include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h @@ -620,6 +620,9 @@ __SYSCALL(__NR_vmsplice, sys_vmsplice) #define __NR_move_pages 279 __SYSCALL(__NR_move_pages, sys_move_pages) +#define __NR_getcpu /* 318 - not relevant */ +#define __NR_epoll_pwait /* 319 - not relevant */ + #define __NR_syscall_max __NR_move_pages #ifndef __NO_STUBS NOTE - I am NOT proposing this patch. It is purely an example how to in an arch specific fashion to shut up the syscall check. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
