From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maxim Kuvyrkov Subject: Re: Add private syscalls to support NPTL Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:56:02 +0400 Message-ID: <4A8A6CA2.4040806@codesourcery.com> References: <4A89D037.7090807@codesourcery.com> <4A8A54F9.3080100@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]:56960 "EHLO mail.codesourcery.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758048AbZHRI4J (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:56:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-m68k-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org To: Andreas Schwab Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org Andreas Schwab wrote: > Maxim Kuvyrkov writes: > >> The need would be (a) use numbers that are very unlikely to used for >> normal syscalls, > > I don't understand. These are normal syscalls. > >> and (b) using -1..-4 for the syscall numbers works out quite nicely >> for the code in entry.S. It adds just a couple of instructions to the >> execution path. > > Those additional instructions are totally unnecessary. Hm, I though it would be preferable to keep syscalls that are specific to m68k (in the sense that no other target requires them) separate from the ones implementing standard unix/linux functionality. If the consensus is that the new syscalls should received 331..334 numbers, that would only simplify the implementation. -- Maxim