Re: [PATCH 05/12] update FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX

[Matt Fleming]

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 01:00:25PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 04:52:35PM -0400, Jason Baron wrote:
> > update FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX to the current number of syscalls
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Baron <jbaron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > 
> > ---
> >  arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h |    4 ++--
> >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > index bd2c651..7113654 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/ftrace.h
> > @@ -30,9 +30,9 @@
> >  
> >  /* FIXME: I don't want to stay hardcoded */
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > -# define FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX     296
> > +# define FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX     299
> >  #else
> > -# define FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX     333
> > +# define FTRACE_SYSCALL_MAX     337
> >  #endif
> 
> 
> I don't remember why we had to use a hardcoded number.
> Is there no way to keep being sync with the current number of
> syscalls? We dwant to avoid patching the kernel each time we
> have a new syscall :-)
> 

On SH we're using (NR_syscalls - 1) to avoid that exact problem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/