On Fri, 17 Jul 2015, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 10:36:59 -0400 Eric B Munson <emunson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Thu, 16 Jul > > > 2015 14:58:53 +1000 Subject: [PATCH] mm: mlock: fix for add new > > > mlock, munlock, and munlockall system calls > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- > > > arch/arm/include/asm/unistd.h | 2 +- arch/arm/kernel/calls.S > > > | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/unistd.h > > > b/arch/arm/include/asm/unistd.h index 32640c431a08..2516c09d65d7 > > > 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/unistd.h +++ > > > b/arch/arm/include/asm/unistd.h @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ * This may need > > > to be greater than __NR_last_syscall+1 in order to * account for > > > the padding in the syscall table */ -#define __NR_syscalls (388) > > > +#define __NR_syscalls (392) > > > > IIUC, this should be 391. > > Read the comment above - it has to be 392 for padding. (I actually > tried 391 and it fails to build.) I saw the comment but it wasn't clear to me what that padding value should be (does __NR_syscalls need to be even, %4, %8, etc). Is there somewhere that I missed that describes what the padding needs to be and when it should be present? > > BTW, what mail client are you using - it really made a mess :-( > That was thunderbird, which has started acting up on me, not sure why it mangled everything. Back to mutt now that I have my laptop back. Hopefully this one is in better shape.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
