On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 03:15:36PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>> >
>> > Is there anything obvious that I might be doing wrong?
>>
>> I only wired up the syscall for x86_64. Who's responsible for adding
>> all the syscall tables for the various architectures?
>
> Ah, and I was testing with i386, not x86_64, so that it explains that.
>
> It's been quite a while since I've worked to add a new system call,
> but my impressure is that in general the person who creates the new
> system call needs to reach out to the architecture maintainers
> (preferably with a patch :-), since otherwise the architecture
Preferably the creator of the new system call emails linux-arch.
Patches are always nice to have, but they may cause conflicts w.r.t.
syscall numbering.
> maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.
If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
inform us about it during our next kernel build.
If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)
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
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
