On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:04:25 +0000 Russell King wrote: > 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? Thanks for sharing that useful info. (seriously) > 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? --- ~Randy - 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
