Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 4:01 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 4:59 AM Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> > > arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl | 11 +++++++++++ >> > > arch/mips/kernel/syscalls/syscall_o32.tbl | 11 +++++++++++ >> > > arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl | 12 ++++++++++++ >> > >> > I have some changes I'd like to make to our syscall table that will >> > clash with this. >> > >> > I'll try and send them today. >> >> Ok. Are those for 5.0 or 5.1? If they are intended for 5.0, it would be >> nice for me to have a branch based on 5.0-rc1 that I can put >> the other patches on top of. > > There is also another change that I considered: > > At the end of my series, we have a lot of entries like > > 245 32 clock_settime sys_clock_settime32 > 245 64 clock_settime sys_clock_settime > 245 spu clock_settime sys_clock_settime > > which could be folded into > > 245 32 clock_settime sys_clock_settime32 > 245 spu64 clock_settime sys_clock_settime > > if we just add another option to the ABI field. Any thoughts on > that? My series splits spu out into a separate field. So the above would be: 245 32 - clock_settime sys_clock_settime32 245 64 spu clock_settime sys_clock_settime cheers
