On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 14:47, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> > But at least the primary, 'native' syscall table of every arch
>> > could be kept rather fresh via generic enumeration.
>>
>> So we can start all over at offset 501 (alpha just started using
>> 500) with a unified, clean, and compressed list of syscalls? Or do
>> we have some more other-os-compat syscalls around in this range?
>
> No, that would leave a big hole in the syscall table of most
> architectures.
Sure, but we could (a) optimize for the case where the syscall number is
larger than 500 and/or (b) drop support for syscall numbers smaller than
501, depending on a config option.
> So what would be needed is for each architecture to define a 'generic
> syscall table base index', ARCH_SYSCALL_BASE or so, and the generic
> syscalls would be added for that.
>
> Alpha would have 501, the others lower numbers.
>
> The only general assumption we can rely on is that there's a range of
> not yet used syscall numbers starting at the end of the current
> syscall table.
Yep, that would work too.
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.
             Â Â -- Linus Torvalds
_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
