Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] parisc: add system call table generation support

[Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org>]

Hi Arnd,

On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 13:18, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 7:35 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 19:27, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 3:02 PM Eugene Syromiatnikov <esyr@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > > +87      common  swapon                          sys_swapon
> > > > > > +88      common  reboot                          sys_reboot
> > > > > > +89      common  mmap2                           sys_mmap2
> > > > > > +90      common  mmap                            sys_mmap
> > > > > > +91      common  munmap                          sys_munmap
> > > > > > +92      common  truncate                        sys_truncate                    compat_sys_truncate
> > > > > > +93      common  ftruncate                       sys_ftruncate                   compat_sys_ftruncate
> > > > > > +94      common  fchmod                          sys_fchmod
> > > > > > +95      common  fchown                          sys_fchown
> > > > > > +96      common  getpriority                     sys_getpriority
> > > > > > +97      common  setpriority                     sys_setpriority
> > > > > > +98      common  recv                            sys_recv
> > > > > > +99      common  statfs                          sys_statfs                      compat_sys_statfs
> > > > > > +100     common  fstatfs                         sys_fstatfs                     compat_sys_fstatfs
> > > > > > +101     common  stat64                          sys_stat64
> > > >
> > > > It is probably worth adding a comment here that syscall 102 was
> > > > socketcall, in order to make reason for this jump in syscall numeration
> > > > self-evident.
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > In general, I'd argue we want to keep all the nontrivial comments that
> > > were present in either unistd.h or syscall_table.S.
> >
> > unistd_32.h, unistd_64.h, syscall_table_32.h, syscall_table_64.h and
> > syscall_table_c32.h
> > are generated files. unistd.h and syscall_table.S file include
> > generated files. I had the
> > support to keep the comments in the generated files.
> >
> > Eg:- from github
> > https://github.com/frzkhn/system_call_table_generator/blob/5fe5fb5a3ad457b234e7600d8a4b61b2e3629acd/ia64/syscall.tbl#L105
> >
> > But I got to know the generated file don't carry any license info and
> > comment section. That's
> > why I removed it from all architecture.
> >
> > I'm ok to keep this support for all architecture. Please feel free to
> > comment here.
>
> I meant just have the comments in the .tbl file, but not act on them.
> One way to do this would be to let the script ignore everything
> past the first '#' character in a line by passing it through 'sed -e "s:#.*$::"'
> or a similar step (there is probably a nicer way to do this with
> shell built-ins).

Sure, I can keep the comments in the .tbl file for all architecture. But
generated file doesn't have the comments.

>
> > > I think this makes more sense, in particular on the other architectures
> > > that have different macro names in some cases. When we do this,
> > > the entries could get compressed to
> > >
> > > 108     32      pread64                         parisc_pread64
> > > 108     64      pread64                         sys_pread64
> > >
> >
> > Sure. I can do this thing. The above one may be applicable for parisc not other
> > architecture. So the scripts might be slightly different. If we keep a
> > standard way,
> > the script will be unique. So the only difference will be Makefile and
> > .tbl files for all
> > architecture; I think that is our one of the goal.
>
> I would expect the above to actually be more important on other
> architectures. E.g. on powerpc:
>
> 291     32    fstatat64        sys_fstatat64      sys_fstatat64
> 291     64    newfstatat     newfstatat
>
> or (simplified)
>
> 291     32    fstatat64        sys_fstatat64
> 291     64    newfstatat     sys_newfstatat

In parisc, I'll go with the above model.

Let me bring another example from powerpc:

syscall_32.tbl,
136     common  personality                     sys_personality
         ppc64_personality   ---> 32-bit, compat (this is the current
model which I implemented)
syscall_64.tbl
136     common  personality                     ppc64_personality
                                       ---> 64-bit

I was wondering if the above table is right, how to arrange like parisc model?
FYI, there are some implement missing for SPU in powerpc

For your reference:
SYSX_SPU(sys_newfstatat,sys_fstatat64,sys_fstatat64)
SYSX_SPU(ppc64_personality,ppc64_personality,sys_personality)

Thanks
Firoz
>
> makes much more sense than
>
> 291     32    fstatat64        sys_fstatat64
> 291     64    newfstatat     newfstatat           sys_fstatat64
>
>         Arnd