Re: Unimplemented syscalls on Alpha

From: Mike Frysinger
Date: Thu Mar 04 2010 - 12:52:12 EST

On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 10:53, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 4:11 AM, Michael Cree wrote:
>> I couldn't but help notice the increasing number of unimplemented syscalls
>> on the Alpha architecture. ÂI thought I might poke around to see what might
>> be required to get these implemented and got a pleasant surprise when it
>> seems some only need an entry in the syscall table. ÂIndeed, the patch in
>> reply to this message gets preadv and pwritev going -- tested with the
>> sample program at
> Cool. I was looking into doing this, but I didn't know how to test the syscalls.
> I tried to keep a list of missing syscalls here,
> but as you can see it's
> already out of date.
>> I am happy to write patches to wire up more of the syscalls, but I am
>> wondering which ones are as straightforward as the preadv/pwritev case?
>> That is, do any require extra programming other than the syscall table? ÂDo
>> I need to get the entries in the syscall table in the same order as other
>> architectures?
> I'm curious and unsure about this too. Patches would be great. I think
> we should figure out who we need to CC to get patches into the kernel,
> as neither of our maintainers have any sort of Alpha tree. I've
> noticed a few patches submitted to this list have never made it into
> the kernel, as well, maybe we should start an alpha tree?

typically if the sys_xxx entry is in common code, you dont need to
implement arch-specific stuff. just hook them up in the system call
table. afaik, preadv/pwritev fall into this category.

> The entries do not need to be in the same order of have the same
> number as other architectures, just once you set the number you cannot
> change it (without breaking the ABI).

correct ... and breaking the ABI is unacceptable
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-alpha" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at