On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:16:19PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Matthew Wilcox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:09:47 -0600 > > > 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? > > The whole idea is for the arch's to just find out that a new syscall > exists when someone adds a new one and some tries a build on that > platform the next time. If the arch's still have to do work then the > whole exercise is pointless.
By and large, the missing syscalls are older ones, eg socketcall or utime, and they tend to be missing for good reason. I think it's entirely appropriate that the arch has to do work when a new syscall is added -- either implement it, or state that it's not supposed to be implemented. - 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
