Hi Helge, On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 11:40, Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Helge, > > On Wed, 10 Oct 2018 at 01:48, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > > System call table generation script must be run to generate > > > unistd_32/64.h and syscall_table_32/64/c32.h files. This patch > > > will have changes which will invokes the script. > > > > > > This patch will generate unistd_32/64.h and syscall_table_ > > > 32/64/c32.h files by the syscall table generation script > > > invoked by arch/parisc/Makefile and the generated files against > > > the removed files will be identical. > > > > > > The generated uapi header file will be included in uapi/asm/ > > > unistd_32/64.h and generated system call table support file will > > > be included by arch/sparc/kernel/syscall_table_32/64.S file. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > arch/parisc/Makefile | 4 + > > > arch/parisc/include/asm/Kbuild | 3 + > > > arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/Kbuild | 2 + > > > arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h | 373 +-------------------------- > > > arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S | 12 +- > > > arch/parisc/kernel/syscall_table.S | 459 ---------------------------------- > > > > > > Can we please get rid of those two new files: > > Yes, we don't need those files some of the architecture and other > architecture does have same/similar files. That's why I added below > files, so every architecture implementation looks same. > > I feel it is better to remove these files. > Arnd, Do u have any comment on this? > > Thanks > Firoz > > > > > > arch/parisc/kernel/syscall_table_32.S | 13 + > > > arch/parisc/kernel/syscall_table_64.S | 20 ++ > > > > Both are not needed (at least on parisc) if you apply the following > > patch on top of your patch series. > > This patch finally fixes the 64-bit kernel on parisc (tested on real > > hardware). > > > > Helge > > > > diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S > > index 2523b83b88d8..45cddeeb968f 100644 > > --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S > > +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscall.S > > @@ -923,10 +923,20 @@ ENTRY(lws_table) > > END(lws_table) > > /* End of lws table */ > > > > -#include "syscall_table_32.S" > > +#define __SYSCALL(nr, entry, nargs) ASM_ULONG_INSN entry > > + > > +ENTRY(sys_call_table) > > +#if defined(CONFIG_64BIT) > > +#include <asm/syscall_table_c32.h> /* compat syscalls */ > > +#else > > +#include <asm/syscall_table_32.h> /* 32-bit native syscalls */ > > +#endif > > +END(sys_call_table) > > + > > #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT > > -#define SYSCALL_TABLE_64BIT > > -#include "syscall_table_64.S" > > +ENTRY(sys_call_table64) > > +#include <asm/syscall_table_64.h> /* 64-bit native syscalls */ > > +END(sys_call_table64) > > #endif > > > > /* I could see a patch (commit 47514da3ac20150cdf764466fbc2010c0fca0163) which will perform a compile-check when adding a new syscall. My patches will remove this feature. Is that fine? Firoz
