On Wed, 22 May 2019 13:14:41 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I thought the preferred approach was to wire up the architectures on > > which the submitter has tested the syscall, then allow the arch > > maintainers to enable the syscall independently? > > I'm hoping to change that practice now, as it has not worked well > in the past: > > - half the architectures now use asm-generic/unistd.h, so they are > already wired up at the same time, regardless of testing > - in the other half, not adding them at the same time actually > made it harder to test, as it was significantly harder to figure > out how to build a modified kernel for a given architecture > than to run the test case > - Not having all architectures add a new call at the same time caused > the architectures to get out of sync when some got added and others > did not. Now that we use the same numbers across all architectures, > that would be even more confusing. > > My plan for the long run is to only have one file to which new > system calls get added in the future. Fair enough. We're adding code to architectures without having tested it on those architectures but we do that all the time anyway - I guess there's not a lot of point in special-casing new syscalls.
