On 11.10.2018 08:48, Firoz Khan wrote: > Hi Helge, > > On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 11:40, Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Helge, >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 01:48, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> * Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> System call table generation script must be run to generate >>>> unistd_32/64.h and syscall_table_32/64/c32.h files. This patch >>>> will have changes which will invokes the script. >>>> >>>> This patch will generate unistd_32/64.h and syscall_table_ >>>> 32/64/c32.h files by the syscall table generation script >>>> invoked by arch/parisc/Makefile and the generated files against >>>> the removed files will be identical. >>>> >>>> The generated uapi header file will be included in uapi/asm/ >>>> unistd_32/64.h and generated system call table support file will >>>> be included by arch/sparc/kernel/syscall_table_32/64.S file. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> arch/parisc/Makefile | 4 + >>>> arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild | 3 + >>>> arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/Kbuild | 2 + >>>> arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h | 373 +-------------------------- >>>> arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S | 12 +- >>>> arch/parisc/kernel/syscall_table.S | 459 ---------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> Can we please get rid of those two new files: >> >> Yes, we don't need those files some of the architecture and other >> architecture does have same/similar files. That's why I added below >> files, so every architecture implementation looks same. >> >> I feel it is better to remove these files. >> Arnd, Do u have any comment on this? >> >> Thanks >> Firoz >> >>> >>>> arch/parisc/kernel/syscall_table_32.S | 13 + >>>> arch/parisc/kernel/syscall_table_64.S | 20 ++ >>> >>> Both are not needed (at least on parisc) if you apply the following >>> patch on top of your patch series. >>> This patch finally fixes the 64-bit kernel on parisc (tested on real >>> hardware). >>> >>> Helge >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S >>> index 2523b83b88d8..45cddeeb968f 100644 >>> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S >>> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S >>> @@ -923,10 +923,20 @@ ENTRY(lws_table) >>> END(lws_table) >>> /* End of lws table */ >>> >>> -#include "syscall_table_32.S" >>> +#define __SYSCALL(nr, entry, nargs) ASM_ULONG_INSN entry >>> + >>> +ENTRY(sys_call_table) >>> +#if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) >>> +#include <asm/syscall_table_c32.h> /* compat syscalls */ >>> +#else >>> +#include <asm/syscall_table_32.h> /* 32-bit native syscalls */ >>> +#endif >>> +END(sys_call_table) >>> + >>> #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT >>> -#define SYSCALL_TABLE_64BIT >>> -#include "syscall_table_64.S" >>> +ENTRY(sys_call_table64) >>> +#include <asm/syscall_table_64.h> /* 64-bit native syscalls */ >>> +END(sys_call_table64) >>> #endif >>> >>> /* > > I could see a patch (commit 47514da3ac20150cdf764466fbc2010c0fca0163) > which will perform a compile-check when adding a new syscall. My patches > will remove this feature. Is that fine? Yes, removing that feature is OK. Since everything is then autogenerated I don't expect such bugs. Helge
