On Sat, Jun 3, 2023, at 11:01, Zhangjin Wu wrote: > > Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > Link: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-riscv/5e7d2adf-e96f-41ca-a4c6-5c87a25d4c9c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > Signed-off-by: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@xxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/include/nolibc/sys.h | 26 +++++++++++++------------- > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h b/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h > index 856249a11890..78c86f124335 100644 > --- a/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h > +++ b/tools/include/nolibc/sys.h > @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ int sys_chmod(const char *path, mode_t mode) > #elif defined(__NR_chmod) > return my_syscall2(__NR_chmod, path, mode); > #else > -#error Neither __NR_fchmodat nor __NR_chmod defined, cannot implement > sys_chmod() > + return -ENOSYS; > #endif > } I think the most logical would be to have each syscall (chmod, fchmodat, ...) have its own function that returns -ENOSYS if that is not defined, and have the logic that decides which one to use as a separate function. This patch is a step in that direction though, so I think that's totally fine. Arnd
