On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 02:34:21PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > Willy, Thomas, Arnd > > > Hi Zhangjin, > > > > On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:25:35PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > > The first two convert all compile failures to a return of -ENOSYS, if you do > > > like it, welcome your Reviewed-by. These two are required by the coming new > > > time64 syscalls for rv32, because they depends on how we cope with the > > > unsupported syscalls, returning -ENOSYS is really better than simply fail the > > > compiling. > > > > I had a look now and I can sya that I like this. Initially the supported > > syscalls were so restricted that it was not even imaginable to accept to > > build without any of them, but now that we're completing the list, some > > of them are less critical and I don't see why we'd fail to build just > > because one is missing. So yeah, a big +1 for -ENOSYS. > > > > Cool, I will prepare the new patchsets on them, welcome your new branch > with both of them, of course, still weclome Reviewed-by from Arnd and Thomas. I don't even think a new branch is needed, I can take them as-is it seems. > > > The third one is not that urgent, because some important syscalls are > > > still missing for rv32. It is added here only for compile test. > > > > I personally have no opinion on this one. I can't judge whether it will > > make things easier or more complicated at this point. It seems to me > > that for now it's just avoiding one extra line at the expense of some > > $(if) on several lines. Maybe it could help add more such archs, or > > maybe it can make them more complicated to debug, I don't know. I'm > > interested in others' opinions as well. > > As I explained why we did it in current way in this reply [1], Thomas had no > more questions on it, so I think Thomas was happy with it now and I got his > only left suggestion is that may be this patch should be applied after the > missing 64bit syscalls being added for there are several important test > failures currently, for me, it is ok before or after. > > Thomas, welcome your Reviewed-by on the makefile patch itself If you are really > happy with it now, thanks very much ;-) > > Willy, I will send the v2 syscalls helpers (also required by the coming 64bit > syscalls) and some other patches (mainly for test with faster kernel build) > about selftests/nolibc later, because we have not enough time for v6.5 test, > so, I suggest we can create new branch for v6.6 and my new patchsets will be > for v6.6. Agreed, thank you! Willy
