On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 10:54:54AM +0100, Haavard Skinnemoen wrote: > sys_timerfd() has been removed, but avr32 still references it from its > syscall table. > > Signed-off-by: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > On Mon, 04 Feb 2008 22:27:28 -0800 > akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Wires up the new timerfd API to the x86 family. > > Just one thing... > > > diff -puN arch/x86/kernel/syscall_table_32.S~timerfd-v3-wire-the-new-timerfd-api-to-the-x86-family arch/x86/kernel/syscall_table_32.S > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_table_32.S~timerfd-v3-wire-the-new-timerfd-api-to-the-x86-family > > +++ a/arch/x86/kernel/syscall_table_32.S > > @@ -321,6 +321,8 @@ ENTRY(sys_call_table) > > .long sys_epoll_pwait > > .long sys_utimensat /* 320 */ > > .long sys_signalfd > > - .long sys_timerfd > > The next time you go and remove a system call, could you _please_ post > a HUGE warning to linux-arch? Or just do a quick grep and fix it up. Wasn't there a decision at a kernel summit that anything which adds new syscalls should have a test program included so that architecture maintainers can test the functionality on their architectures? I seem to remember that it came up because the merged timerfd was a pile of utter crap which didn't have a hope in hells chance of working. So... where is the new timerfd test program? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
