Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Sun, 21 May 2006 15:47:04 -0400 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64 |
| |
On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:38:18PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 02:56:10PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > Actually it is kinda throttled, but only on process name. > > This patch just removes that stuff completely. > > (Also removes a bunch of trailing whitespace) > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> > > > > --- linux-2.6.16.noarch/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c~ 2006-05-21 14:50:57.000000000 -0400 > > +++ linux-2.6.16.noarch/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c 2006-05-21 14:51:48.000000000 -0400 > > @@ -522,17 +522,9 @@ sys32_waitpid(compat_pid_t pid, unsigned > > } > > > > int sys32_ni_syscall(int call) > > -{ > > - struct task_struct *me = current; > > - static char lastcomm[sizeof(me->comm)]; > > - > > - if (strncmp(lastcomm, me->comm, sizeof(lastcomm))) { > > - printk(KERN_INFO "IA32 syscall %d from %s not implemented\n", > > - call, me->comm); > > - strncpy(lastcomm, me->comm, sizeof(lastcomm)); > > - } > > - return -ENOSYS; > > -} > > +{ > > + return -ENOSYS; > > +} > >... > > Why can't we remove sys32_ni_syscall() and call sys_ni_syscall() > instead if all we want to do is to return -ENOSYS?
We could, though it's a more invasive patch, which would probably sprinkle extra includes/externs over multiple files, for no practical gain over having this tiny function isolated to this file.
Dave
-- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - 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) |