Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:33:46 -0700 | From | "Randy.Dunlap" <> | Subject | Re: [Fastboot] kexec update (2.6.0-test7) |
| |
On 9 Oct 2003 21:27:35 GMT davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) wrote:
| In article <m1y8vufe5l.fsf@ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com>, | Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xmission.com> wrote: | | Cherry George Mathew <cherry@sdf.lonestar.org> writes: | | | | > On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Randy.Dunlap wrote: | | > | | > > You'll need to update the kexec-syscall.c file for the correct | | > > kexec syscall number (274). | | > | | > Is there a consensus about what the syscall number will finally be ? We've | | > jumped from 256 to 274 over the 2.5.x+ series kernels. Or is it the law | | > the Jungle ? | | | | So far the law of the jungle. Regardless of the rest it looks like it | | is time to submit a place keeping patch. | | Forgive me if the politics of this have changed, but will a place | keeping patch be accepted for a feature which has not?
Like the one recently added for "vserver" ??
#define __NR_vserver 273
and
.long sys_ni_syscall /* sys_vserver */ (ni == not implemented)
But I don't think that it's quite time for a placeholder syscall number (IMO of course). Eric can submit one though.
-- ~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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |