On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:40 PM Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> wrote: > > Le 13/01/2020 à 21:34, Aleksandar Markovic a écrit : > > From: Aleksandar Markovic <amarko...@wavecomp.com> > > > > Update mips syscall numbers based on Linux kernel tag v5.5-rc3 > > (commit 46cf053e). > > > > Signed-off-by: Aleksandar Markovic <amarko...@wavecomp.com> > > --- > > linux-user/mips/cpu_loop.c | 78 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > linux-user/mips/syscall_nr.h | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > linux-user/mips64/syscall_nr.h | 13 +++++++ > > 3 files changed, 135 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/linux-user/mips/cpu_loop.c b/linux-user/mips/cpu_loop.c > > index 39915b3..b81479b 100644 > > --- a/linux-user/mips/cpu_loop.c > > +++ b/linux-user/mips/cpu_loop.c > > @@ -25,8 +25,9 @@ > > #include "internal.h" > > > > # ifdef TARGET_ABI_MIPSO32 > > +# define MIPS_SYSCALL_NUMBER_UNUSED -1 > > I'm not sure you need to introduce this change. > > The case already exists (stat, fstat, old_select, lstat, ...) and the > entry that was used is: > > MIPS_SYS(sys_ni_syscall , 0) > > perhaps you can do the same ? >
I like better the new way of dealing with this (like in this patch), since it is more explicit. For now, I won't change this patch, if you agree, and later on I will synchronize all such cases to be the same (but this is not critical for the time being). Yours, Aleksandar > I think the do_syscall() will return -ENOSYS as the TARGET_NR_XXX is not > defined for o32 in linux-user/mips/syscall_nr.h. > > Thanks, > Laurent >