Re: [PATCH] compatibility syscall layer (lets try again)

From: Linus Torvalds (torvalds@transmeta.com)
Date: Thu Dec 05 2002 - 12:03:03 EST


On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, george anzinger wrote:
>
> I think this covers all the bases. It builds boots and
> runs. I haven't tested nano_sleep to see if it does the
> right thing yet...

Well, it definitely doesn't, since at least this test is the wrong way
around (as well as being against the coding style whitespace rules ;-p):

+ if ( ! current_thread_info()->restart_block.fun){
+ return current_thread_info()->restart_block.fun(&parm);

Also, I would suggest against having a NULL pointer, and instead just
initializing it with a function that sets it to an error return (don't use
ENOSYS, since the system call _does_ exist, and ENOSYS is what old kernels
would return if you do it by hand by mistake. I'd suggest -EINTR, since
that will "DoTheRightThing(tm)" if we somehow get confused).

                Linus

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 07 2002 - 22:00:23 EST