Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:15 PM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 14 September 2018 at 15:31, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:33 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > >> >> --- >> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/Makefile | 51 ++++ >> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl | 378 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl | 372 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscallhdr.sh | 37 +++ >> >> arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscalltbl.sh | 38 +++ >> > >> > I think you should only need a single .tbl input file here. >> >> Yes, we can do that way also.As I mentioned, it will add >> more complexity in the script. >> >> The script has to be smart enough to parse the >> .tbl if we add more thing in the .tble file. It need more >> logic in the scripts. This is not common. So if you keep >> separate .tbl we can avoid this. > > But all three existing architectures (x86, s390 and arm) already > have the capability to parse the table and generate different output > from that. Yeah, we want that on powerpc too. If the script needs to be more complex that's fine, if it can't be shared across arches that's fine, the main thing for me is that wiring up a syscall can be done by adding a single line in a single file. cheers
