Hi Firoz, On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:49 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 11:36, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 08.10.2018 07:52, Firoz Khan wrote: > > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 11:11, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On 08.10.2018 07:16, Firoz Khan wrote: > > >>> Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > >>> --- > > >>> arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl | 3 ++- > > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > >>> > > >>> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl > > >>> index 4e85293..4334bb7 100644 > > >>> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl > > >>> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl > > >>> @@ -349,4 +349,5 @@ > > >>> 347 common preadv2 sys_preadv2 compat_sys_preadv2 > > >>> 348 common pwritev2 sys_pwritev2 compat_sys_pwritev2 > > >>> 349 common statx sys_statx > > >>> -350 common io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents compat_sys_io_pgetevents > > >>> \ No newline at end of file > > >>> +350 common io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents compat_sys_io_pgetevents > > >>> +351 common rseq sys_rseq compat_sys_rseq > > >> > > >> You can't add the rseq syscall for parisc yet. > > >> It needs additional code in the kernel for parisc which hasn't been tested yet. > > >> See my initial untested patch at https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10495209/ > > > > > > Thanks for your update! > > > > > > When I compiled the kernel I got below warnings. > > > > > > <stdin>:696:2: warning: #warning syscall nfsservctl not implemented [-Wcpp] > > > <stdin>:1335:2: warning: #warning syscall rseq not implemented [-Wcpp] > > > > > > I added an IGNORE entry nfsservctl in script/checksyscalls.sh because this > > > syscall is gone. But we definitely have to keep rseq entry on parisc > > > architecture. > > > > I prefer to keep the warning for rseq for now. > > I'm fine with this. > > > It reminds me that we still may want the rseq syscall. > > If the warning is a problem, you may simply add the __IGNORE_rseq define. > > But I still feel to keep an IGNORE entry, so once you test your patch; we can > remove IGNORE entry and update the syscall.tbl. If the warning is bogus (e.g. obsolete syscall), an IGNORE entry should be added. If the warning is due to a not-yet-implemented feature, IMHO it should not be silenced, as that would give the false impression that the feature is present and implemented. Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
