On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 01:27:33PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > > what shall I say ... depends on the patch 8-) > > > > --- linux-2.4.22/arch/i386/kernel/entry.S 2003-06-13 16:51:29.000000000 +0200 > > +++ linux-2.4.22-ctx17a/arch/i386/kernel/entry.S 2003-08-25 > > 03:16:10.000000000 +0200 > > @@ -663,6 +663,8 @@ > > .long SYMBOL_NAME(sys_ni_syscall) /* sys_epoll_wait */ > > .long SYMBOL_NAME(sys_ni_syscall) /* sys_remap_file_pages */ > > .long SYMBOL_NAME(sys_ni_syscall) /* sys_set_tid_address */ > > + .long SYMBOL_NAME(sys_new_s_context) > > + .long SYMBOL_NAME(sys_set_ipv4root) /* 260 */ > > 259 is sys_timer_create() > 260 is sys_timer_settime() > > The syscall numbers up to 270 are already reserved, > maybe some beyond 270 too.
hum, 2.4.22 kernel doesn't know about this ... where are the 'reserved' syscalls listed/registed? please elaborate! > > > Does vserver have reserved syscall numbers already ? > > > > no ... > > > > > If so, are there any plans to get them ? > > > > we tried some time ago, but it wasn't possible ... > > Why wasn't it ? guess because nobody important enough liked vserver, or Jacques and the others didn't try hard enough ;) > Given the fact that we already have sys_tux, sys_reiserfs4, > sys_afs, sys_sysfs and half a dozen more specialty syscalls, > surely it should be possible to reserve an official syscall > for vserver. I would appreciate one or two official syscall number(s) - create/setup/destroy context - migrate/modify task > > > How about a sys_vserver multiplexer so we can easily add > > > things like setting a new ipv6 root to the interface, > > > without needing yet another syscall ? > > > > good idea ... go ahead implement some stuff ... > > I will. The project I am currently working on is slowly > getting less busy, so I should have time soon. Hopefully > next week. good to know ... guess you already know about my patches and extensions ... if you need something, let me know ... best, Herbert > Rik > -- > "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place. > Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, > by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
