Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk,
	torvalds@linux-foundation.org, drepper@gmail.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nextfd(2)
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2012 15:05:53 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F78D141.4070609@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201204011921.59596.arnd@arndb.de>

On 04/01/2012 12:21 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Sunday 01 April 2012, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
>>  arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl |    1 +
>>  arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl |    1 +
>>  fs/Makefile                      |    1 +
>>  fs/nextfd.c                      |   27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  include/linux/syscalls.h         |    1 +
>>  5 files changed, 31 insertions(+)
> 
> I don't have any comments on the syscall itself, but when you add one, please
> also make the change to include/asm-generic/unistd.h so it appears in the
> various architectures using the generic syscall table.
> 
> 	Arnd

Arnd: do you have any interest in leveraging the syscall scripts I did
for x86?  I have tried to make them as generic as possible, with the
hope of getting more and more of syscall information into more easily
processed form.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.