Hi Firoz,
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:55 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 13:53, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:49 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 11:36, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 08.10.2018 07:52, Firoz Khan wrote:
> > > > > <stdin>:696:2: warning: #warning syscall nfsservctl not implemented [-Wcpp]
> > > > > <stdin>:1335:2: warning: #warning syscall rseq not implemented [-Wcpp]
> > > > >
> > > > > I added an IGNORE entry nfsservctl in script/checksyscalls.sh because this
> > > > > syscall is gone. But we definitely have to keep rseq entry on parisc
> > > > > architecture.
> > > >
> > > > I prefer to keep the warning for rseq for now.
> > >
> > > I'm fine with this.
> > >
> > > > It reminds me that we still may want the rseq syscall.
> > > > If the warning is a problem, you may simply add the __IGNORE_rseq define.
> > >
> > > But I still feel to keep an IGNORE entry, so once you test your patch; we can
> > > remove IGNORE entry and update the syscall.tbl.
> >
> > If the warning is bogus (e.g. obsolete syscall), an IGNORE entry
> > should be added.
>
> nfsservctl look like an obsolete one, so I added an IGNORE entry in
> script/checksyscalls.h
Yes it is.
> > If the warning is due to a not-yet-implemented feature, IMHO it should not be
> > silenced, as that would give the false impression that the feature is
> > present and
> > implemented.
>
> Helge had done some implementation for rseq but not tested. So we
> either add an IGNORE
> entry or leave the warning as it is.
Personally, I prefer keeping the warning, for the above reason.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
