On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:55:35PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote: > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:28:09PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > personally, I believe that the whole syscall number > > allocation per architecture is broken by design, > > No it's definitely not.
since you removed it from the original context ... I agree from a technical point of view, but not from the developer's perspective (who just want's a syscall for whatever arch independant use ...) > Binary compatibility with other OS's is an arch specific problem. for sure it is, but I don't see a relation there ... > In our case, any chance of support for HPUX would > require reserving HPUX syscall numbers and provide > appropriate wrappers in the kernel to support it. so where is the problem, having an additional offset/info in the macro defining the syscall can handle that, why has it to be a different numbering for 'linux' syscalls? > And I don't see why the value of a syscall matters. it doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter to me ... > Just use the right header files and it should work on any arch. right, but getting one syscall for every arch, seems like a jigsaw puzzle, as the original thread shows ... best, Herbert > grant > _______________________________________________ > parisc-linux mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux _______________________________________________ Vserver mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
