Hi Peter,
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 09:40 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> 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 ;-)
>>>
>>> Maybe we should change scripts/checksyscalls.sh to check the x86_64
>>> list of syscalls, and not i386?
>>>
>>> It's been a long time since "all the world's an i386" --- these days,
>>> it's "all the world's an x86_64". :-)
>>
>> Let the kbuild people (and their employers) fight over it...
>>
>
> I'm missing context here, but as an x86 maintainer I have no intention
> of allowing system calls that aren't x86-specific to be added to x86-64
> only.
commit 520c8b16505236fc82daa352e6c5e73cd9870cff
Author: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Apr 1 17:08:42 2014 +0200
vfs: add renameat2 syscall
It was added to arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl only.
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
