Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > The prototype in the header doesn't match the one in the implementation, > which should cause a compile-time error, at least if syscalls.h is included > in namespace.c I've fixed that sort of thing up from kbuild warnings. > Do you have a particular use case in mind for the spare_4/spare_5 arguments? > If not, we can probably skip them. If we end up needing them after all, we > can always add a new syscall entry point, or use one of the flag bits to > decide whether the additional arguments are valid or not. Whilst that is true, these aren't really (or probably shouldn't be) hot path syscalls, so I would contend that just clearing the extra arguments shouldn't be much of a performance loss. On the other hand, syscall numbers are to some extent precious. If we hit ~512 syscalls we start to have an issue as we start to get overlaps. And, yes, I do have ideas for them involving ID mapping on mounts (ie. killing off shiftfs). > > COND_SYSCALL(sys_fsopen); > > +COND_SYSCALL(sys_fsmount); > > This should only be needed if the syscall is optional, which it doesn't > seem to be (same for the other ones here). Al removed them. David
