Hi Helge, On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 15:57, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11.10.2018 08:48, Firoz Khan wrote: > > 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? > > Yes, removing that feature is OK. > Since everything is then autogenerated I don't expect such bugs. Sure, thanks for your reply. Firoz > > Helge
