Hi Max, On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 05:19, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Firoz, > > I have one more question: > > On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 2:20 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The 2nd option will be the recommended one. For that, I > > added the __NR_syscalls macro in uapi/asm/unistd.h along > > with __NR_syscall_count asm/unistd.h. The macro __NR_sys- > > calls also added for making the name convention same across > > all architecture. While __NR_syscalls isn't strictly part > > of the uapi, having it as part of the generated header to > > simplifies the implementation. We also need to enclose > > this macro with #ifdef __KERNEL__ to avoid side effects. > > Looking at the include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h I see that > __NR_syscalls is not guarded by the #ifdef __KERNEL__, > why should it be guarded for xtensa? __NR_syscalls for kernel. So this macro is present in asm/unistd.h rather than uapi/asm/unistd.h. As I mentioned in the patch, it would be better to keep in uapi/asm/unistd.h to count the number of syscalls. But this will create some side effect. So I was guarded with __KERNEL__. In order to come up with common implementation, I kept this for all architecture. > > If we remove __NR_syscall_count from the uapi header I'd > suggest dropping it completely and switching its two current > users to __NR_syscalls. I'm not removing the __NR_syscall_count macro; just place it in asm/unistd.h file for the above reason. FYI, I made sure that the kernel will build with my patch. I would appreciate if you can perform the boot test on the actual platform. Thanks Firoz > > -- > Thanks. > -- Max
