Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: convert to generated system call tables

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 10/25/2016 03:28 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 10:12:10 PM CEST Michael Cree wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 03:06:45PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> I see your point, but I think there are serious issues with the current
>>> approach as well:
>>>
>>> - a lot of the less common architectures just don't get updated
>>>   in time, out of 22 architectures that don't use asm-generic/unistd.h,
>>>   only 12 have pwritev2 in linux-next, and only three have pkey_mprotect
>>>
>>> - some architectures that add all syscalls sometimes make a mistake
>>>   and forget one, e.g. alpha apparently never added __NR_bpf, but it
>>>   did add the later __NR_execveat.
>>
>> __NR_bpf was not forgotten on Alpha.  It was not wired up because
>> extra architecture support is needed which has not been implemented.
>>
>> But maybe we should just wire it up to sys_ni_syscall in the meantime
>> so a syscall number is reserved for it, and user space can call it to
>> get -ENOSYS returned.
> 
> Ah, I must have misinterpreted the code then. I assumed that the
> bpf syscall always works on all architectures, but that only the
> jit compiler for it required architecture specific code to make it
> more efficient.

That was my interpretation as well.  What's the problem, Michael?


r~
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux