Hi Linus, On Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:12:56 +0200 Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 04:00:15PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > -359 i386 userfaultfd sys_userfaultfd > > ++374 i386 userfaultfd sys_userfaultfd > > Do I understand correctly the syscall number of userfaultfd for x86 > 32bit has just changed from 359 to 374? Appreciated that you CCed me > on such a relevant change to be sure I didn't miss it. > > Then the below is needed as well. The below patch was missed when the userfaultfd stuff and the x86 changes were merged. I have repeated the patch in the clear below. From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 18:53:17 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] userfaultfd: selftest: update userfaultfd x86 32bit syscall number It changed as result of linux-next merge of other syscalls. Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx> --- tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c index 0c0b839..76071b1 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/userfaultfd.c @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ #ifdef __x86_64__ #define __NR_userfaultfd 323 #elif defined(__i386__) -#define __NR_userfaultfd 359 +#define __NR_userfaultfd 374 #elif defined(__powewrpc__) #define __NR_userfaultfd 364 #else -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
