On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:43:39PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:39:16PM +0100, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 04:09:52PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > > Crikey, Alpha's syscall table is a right mess. > > > > I don't know anything about alpha, but does the kernel actually > > implement those OSF syscalls ? If not, it's unlikely we're going to > > implement them in trinity, so we could probably do the same thing we did on ia64, and > > > > #define SYSCALL_OFFSET 300 and skip all those ni_syscall entries. > > > > Or am I missing something ? > > Well, fork() is still syscall number 2, for example. I don't think we can > tidy this up with a simple offset unfortunately :( Ah, I missed that. Now I see why you said it was a mess. Ok, I'll apply your patch as is. thanks, Dave -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe trinity" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
