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-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
