Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Jun 2015 17:04:26 +0200 | From | Jesper Nilsson <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cris: Wire up missing syscalls |
| |
On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:36:47PM +0200, Chen Gang wrote: > On 06/03/2015 06:20 PM, Jesper Nilsson wrote: > > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:48:12PM +0200, Chen Gang wrote: > >> The related warnings: > >> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> > > Thanks and applied, sorry for the long delay, I had to rewrite the patch a bit > > since the v10 and v32 does not have the same standard in prefixing underscores. > > Also, to be safe I also bumped the NR_syscalls as below. > > > > Oh, it doesn't matter, everyone's time resources are expensive, so I > should/can understand your delay response.
Thanks for understanding.
> Sorry for my carelessness: use "_sys*", and keep original NR_syscalls no > touch. And also 3 additional things I guess we may need a look: > > - For v10, need we also use "sys*" instead of "_sys*"?
No, the trick here is that v10 and v32 uses different standards with regards to prefixing underscore. I'm hoping to fix that someday.
> - Most archs do not implement seccomp and bpf, which can pass building, > but will return -ENOSYS during running. Need we left them still as > warnings? (I guess, it depends on the maintainer's taste).
Well, I don't have any strong feelings in either direction. :-)
> - In the latest next tree, it also add additional userfaultfd syscall, > need we add it, too?
Hm, haven't seen that syscall, I'm guessing it's in linux-next?
/^JN - Jesper Nilsson -- Jesper Nilsson -- jesper.nilsson@axis.com
| |