On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> hm, did you try running this on x86_64?
git://git.infradead.org/~dwmw2/syscalls-2.6.git
Should make it quieter on ARM and x86_64, and includes Stéphane's patch
to make it work with dash.
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
hm, did you try running this on x86_64?
git://git.infradead.org/~dwmw2/syscalls-2.6.git
Should make it quieter on ARM and x86_64, and includes Stéphane's patch
to make it work with dash.
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 04:14:07PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:01:13 +
>
> > Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
> > automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
> >
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 07:43:08AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > hm, did you try running this on x86_64?
>
> I don't have any. I only tested it on PowerPC and i386. Others then
> provided more exclusions for SPARC and maybe ARM,
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hm, did you try running this on x86_64?
>
> I don't have any. I only tested it on PowerPC and i386. Others then
> provided more exclusions for SPARC and maybe ARM, although I'm not sure
> you have the latter yet. It's not hard to add extra
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> hm, did you try running this on x86_64?
I don't have any. I only tested it on PowerPC and i386. Others then
provided more exclusions for SPARC and maybe ARM, although I'm not sure
you have the latter yet. It's not hard to add extra
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
hm, did you try running this on x86_64?
I don't have any. I only tested it on PowerPC and i386. Others then
provided more exclusions for SPARC and maybe ARM, although I'm not sure
you have the latter yet. It's not hard to add extra
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hm, did you try running this on x86_64?
I don't have any. I only tested it on PowerPC and i386. Others then
provided more exclusions for SPARC and maybe ARM, although I'm not sure
you have the latter yet. It's not hard to add extra exclusions.
You
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 07:43:08AM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 16:42 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
hm, did you try running this on x86_64?
I don't have any. I only tested it on PowerPC and i386. Others then
provided more exclusions for SPARC and maybe ARM, although I'm
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 04:14:07PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:01:13 +
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:01:13 +
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
> automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
> implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
> On PowerPC
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:01:13 +
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
On PowerPC at the
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 20:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
> > for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
> > on-stack longwords for the call.
> >
> > So if something "new" is coming up, please keep in
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 19:54 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > We need additional gunk for syscalls that can be called from SPEs on
> > cell
>
> Can that gunk not be auto generated?
>
> I know s390 does in some cases, but it looks quite auto generatable to me.
The system call tables and the compat
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 19:54 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
We need additional gunk for syscalls that can be called from SPEs on
cell
Can that gunk not be auto generated?
I know s390 does in some cases, but it looks quite auto generatable to me.
The system call tables and the compat wrapper
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 20:00 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
on-stack longwords for the call.
So if something new is coming up, please keep in mind that it
Russell King wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:40:08AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
on-stack longwords for the call.
So if
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:40:08AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> >
> >Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
> >for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
> >on-stack longwords for the call.
> >
> >So if
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
on-stack longwords for the call.
So if something "new" is coming up, please keep in mind that it should
be flexible enough to
On Fri, 2007-03-09 20:00:51 +0100, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
> > for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
> > on-stack longwords for the call.
> >
> > So if something "new" is coming
> Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
> for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
> on-stack longwords for the call.
>
> So if something "new" is coming up, please keep in mind that it should
> be flexible enough to represent that. :)
> We need additional gunk for syscalls that can be called from SPEs on
> cell
Can that gunk not be auto generated?
I know s390 does in some cases, but it looks quite auto generatable to me.
-Andi
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 17:11 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> Of course the existing syscall numbers can't be changed, but for all new
> calls one could just add automatically for everybody.
>
> A global table with two entries (compat and non compat) and a per arch
> override table should be
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 17:11 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
> > automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
> > implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently
On Fri, 2007-03-09 17:11:10 +0100, Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
> > automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
> > implemented on i386 but not the
David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
> automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
> implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
> On PowerPC at the moment, for example, it
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:01:13PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
> automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
> implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
> On PowerPC at the moment,
On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:01:13PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
On PowerPC at the moment, for
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
On PowerPC at the moment, for example, it results
On Fri, 2007-03-09 17:11:10 +0100, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 17:11 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being
On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 17:11 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
Of course the existing syscall numbers can't be changed, but for all new
calls one could just add automatically for everybody.
A global table with two entries (compat and non compat) and a per arch
override table should be sufficient.
We need additional gunk for syscalls that can be called from SPEs on
cell
Can that gunk not be auto generated?
I know s390 does in some cases, but it looks quite auto generatable to me.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
on-stack longwords for the call.
So if something new is coming up, please keep in mind that it should
be flexible enough to represent that. :)
Are
On Fri, 2007-03-09 20:00:51 +0100, Andi Kleen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
on-stack longwords for the call.
So if something new is coming up, please
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
on-stack longwords for the call.
So if something new is coming up, please keep in mind that it should
be flexible enough to
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:40:08AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
on-stack longwords for the call.
So if something new is
Russell King wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:40:08AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example,
for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of
on-stack longwords for the call.
So if
Hi,
> Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
> automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
> implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
> On PowerPC at the moment, for example, it results in these warnings:
Love it!
...
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 16:14 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> The rest, like ioperm, iopl, modify_ldt, et al. are i386
> specific.
Thanks for the update. Quite why the PowerPC kernel defines system call
numbers for all of these I have no idea :)
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the
From: David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:01:13 +
> Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
> automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
> implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
> On
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
On PowerPC at the moment, for example, it results in these warnings:
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
On PowerPC at the moment, for example, it results in these warnings:
From: David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 23:01:13 +
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
On PowerPC at
On Thu, 2007-03-08 at 16:14 -0800, David Miller wrote:
The rest, like ioperm, iopl, modify_ldt, et al. are i386
specific.
Thanks for the update. Quite why the PowerPC kernel defines system call
numbers for all of these I have no idea :)
--
dwmw2
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
Hi,
Most system calls seem to get added to i386 first. This patch
automatically generates a warning for any new system call which is
implemented on i386 but not the architecture currently being compiled.
On PowerPC at the moment, for example, it results in these warnings:
Love it!
...
46 matches
Mail list logo
