On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 15:29 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > On 11/19/2015 02:45 PM, Denis Kirjanov wrote: > > On 11/19/15, Rashmica Gupta <rashm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Most architectures use NR_syscalls as the #define for the > > > > number of > > > > syscalls. > > > > > > > > We use __NR_syscalls, and then define NR_syscalls as > > > > __NR_syscalls. > > > > > > > > __NR_syscalls is not used outside arch code, whereas > > > > NR_syscalls is. So as > > > > NR_syscalls must be defined and __NR_syscalls does not, replace > > > > __NR_syscalls > > > > with NR_syscalls. > > Hi, > > > > But what's wrong with the current code? Why do we need such change? > > Yeah, just out of curiosity. Why we had both __NR_syscalls and > NR_syscalls to begin with ?
Evolutionary remains. This is a whorthwhile and fairly simple cleanup. Cheers, Ben. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
