On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 5:20 PM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The IPC system call handling is highly inconsistent across architectures,
> some use sys_ipc, some use separate calls, and some use both. We also
> have some architectures that require passing IPC_64 in the flags, and
> others that set it implicitly.
>
> For the additon of a y2083 safe semtimedop() system call, I chose to only
> support the separate entry points, but that requires first supporting
> the regular ones with their own syscall numbers.
>
> The IPC_64 is now implied by the new semctl/shmctl/msgctl system
> calls even on the architectures that require passing it with the ipc()
> multiplexer.
>
> I'm not adding the new semtimedop() or semop() on 32-bit architectures,
> those will get implemented using the new semtimedop_time64() version
> that gets added along with the other time64 calls.
> Three 64-bit architectures (powerpc, s390 and sparc) get semtimedop().
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> arch/m68k/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl | 11 +++++++++++
For m68k:
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
