On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 10:58 AM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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.
Agreed, there is no need to patch this now if Helge is already working
on the correct fix. Same for the other architectures. If there are architectures
that have multiple missing syscalls, we could add a line with a comment
for rseq but not actually define it, like
348 common pwritev2 sys_pwritev2
compat_sys_pwritev2
349 common statx sys_statx
+350 common io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents
compat_sys_io_pgetevents
+# rseq requires an arch specific implementation
+# 351 common rseq sys_rseq
compat_sys_rseq */
+352 common open_tree sys_open_tree
+353 common move_mount sys_move_mount
+354 common fsopen sys_fsopen
Arnd
