From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756431AbYDXViV (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:38:21 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753505AbYDXViB (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:38:01 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.183]:54083 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753589AbYDXViA (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:38:00 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Michal Simek Subject: Re: microblaze syscall list Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:37:52 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Will Newton , Linux Kernel list , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, git@xilinx.com, microblaze-uclinux@itee.uq.edu.au References: <4988.7968-24314-1195487808-1209070282@seznam.cz> In-Reply-To: <4988.7968-24314-1195487808-1209070282@seznam.cz> X-Face: I@=L^?./?$U,EK.)V[4*>`zSqm0>65YtkOe>TFD'!aw?7OVv#~5xd\s,[~w]-J!)|%=]>=?utf-8?q?+=0A=09=7EohchhkRGW=3F=7C6=5FqTmkd=5Ft=3FLZC=23Q-=60=2E=60Y=2Ea=5E?= =?utf-8?q?3zb?=) =?utf-8?q?+U-JVN=5DWT=25cw=23=5BYo0=267C=26bL12wWGlZi=0A=09=7EJ=3B=5Cwg?= =?utf-8?q?=3B3zRnz?=,J"CT_)=\H'1/{?SR7GDu?WIopm.HaBG=QYj"NZD_[zrM\Gip^U MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804242337.53681.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18hVVqyK+jkcDPPjQfeXQzJlOEfygskPCEqmph d/gBdH4TyyTgXLnCTYV3NC7qsISmhLc0ZjogH/By3Yc8Y21qDb +odJJdeNmn337LN7np/HA== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 24 April 2008, Michal Simek wrote: > Hi Arnd, > here is current syscall table - I only rewrite your changes. I remove sys_ni_syscall except from #ifdefs. > I would like to match syscalls to logical block. Can I do it? (I'll fix unistd.h later) yes, that makes a lot of sense to me. If we introduce a new asm-generic/unistd.h, it's good to have it sorted in some meaningful way, even if it is going to get messier over time. > Can you look at it if I remove old syscalls? > I will continue tomorrow I am tired. ok, I'll look at it tomorrow. > > #ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_SIGNAL > .long sys_signal > #else > .long sys_ni_syscall > #endif > #ifdef __ARCH_WANT_SYS_TIME > .long sys_time > .long sys_stime > #else > .long sys_ni_syscall > .long sys_ni_syscall > #endif I guess I wasn't entirely clear with what I mean referring to __ARCH_WANT_SYS_*. Instead of adding the #ifdef here, I meant you should just remove the call entirely. With a few exceptions that I already mentioned, the fact that there is an __ARCH_WANT check in the syscall definition means that new architectures should not reference the call, nor #define the __ARCH_WANT macro. Arnd <><