On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 10:19:29PM +0200, Sam Ravnborg wrote: > 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 */ > +
If a syscall is not relevant, define __IGNORE_getcpu etc instead. -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - 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
