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 th
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
> > implement
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, althoug
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
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 exclusio
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 a
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 m
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 wra
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 someth
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
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 repr
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 messa
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
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 b
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 archite
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 resu
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,
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 lin
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
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:
init/missing_syscalls.h:935:3:
23 matches
Mail list logo
