Re: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 1/7] uml: fix syscall table by including $(SUBARCH)'s one, for i386

[Jeff Dike]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 11:10:53AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * blaisorblade@xxxxxxxx (blaisorblade@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > 
> > Split the i386 entry.S files into entry.S and syscall_table.S which
> > is included in the previous one (so actually there is no difference between
> > them) and use the syscall_table.S in the UML build, instead of tracking by
> > hand the syscall table changes (which is inherently error-prone).
> 
> Xen can use this as well (it was on my todo list).

Maybe talking out of my ass here, but would it make sense to have the
generic syscalls in asm-generic, in the form of something like:
	SYSCALL(__NR_getpid, sys_getpid)
?

The arch include this into its syscall table, would continue to define
__NR_*, and it would define SYSCALL (but all the syscall tables I've
seen are just arrays of pointers).  This would allow the arches to
automatically get all the generic system calls, and they'd continue to
define on their own any arch-specific things.

				Jeff
-
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/