lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: syscals
On 9 Apr 2002, Frank Schaefer wrote:

| On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 04:10, mark manning wrote:
| > ok - according to unistd.h we now have exactly 256 syscalls allocated (unless im missing something). my code needs to be able to account for every single possible syscall and so i need to be able to store the syscall number in a standard way. not all syscalls are catered for on the outset by at any time the user can say "i need to use syscall x which takes y parameters" and the code will be able to take care of it.
| >
| > the problem is that i am currently reserving only 8 bits for the syscall number. this is ok for now but if we ever get another syscall its going to be unuseable by my existing code :) - should i be reserving 16 bits now in preperation for some new syscalls being added ?
| > -
| >
| Hmm...
|
| dunno if you got this right. There are maximal 256 syscalls possible,
| and, right -- exactly this amount of syscalls is in the entrytable. But
| alotalotalot of them are defined as sys_ni_syscall (not yet
| implemented).
| I think there is still some space for enhancements. See
| arch/i386/kernel/entry.S.

Where is the limitation of 256 syscalls possible?

--
~Randy

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.069 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site