On Fri, May 5, 2023, at 22:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2023 19:26:11 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven
> <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl | 1 +
>> > arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl | 1 +
>>
>> This should be wired up on each and every architecture.
>> Currently we're getting
>>
>> <stdin>:1567:2: warning: #warning syscall cachestat not implemented [-Wcpp]
>>
>> in linux-next for all the missing architectures.
>
> Is that wise? We risk adding a syscall to an architecture without the
> arch maintainers and testers even knowing about it.
>
> The compile-time nag is there to inform the arch maintainers that a new
> syscall is available and that they should wire it up, run the selftest
> and then ship the code if they're happy with the result.
The usual approach is for the author of a new syscall to
include a patch with all the architecture specific changes
and Cc the architecture maintainers for that.
Note that half the architectures get the entry from
include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h, so adding it there
does not necessarily trigger adding each maintainer
from scripts/get_maintainer.pl.
The only real risk in adding a new syscall is passing __u64
register arguments that behave differently across
architectures, or using pointers to data structures that
require a compat handler on some architectures. I watch out
for those as they get sent to me or the linux-arch list,
and this one is fine.
Arnd
