Re: [PATCH] scripts/checksyscalls.sh: only whine perf_counter_open when supported

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:55:45AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 06:11, Paul Mundt wrote:
> > On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 05:55:44AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 05:37, Paul Mundt wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:29, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> >> If the port does not support HAVE_PERF_COUNTERS, then they can't support
> >> >> the perf_counter_open syscall either. ??Rather than forcing everyone to add
> >> >> an ignore (or suffer the warning until they get around to implementing
> >> >> support), only whine about the syscall when applicable.
> >> >
> >> > I fail to see why this is necessary? cond_syscall() takes care of this in
> >> > the not implemented case, the same as every other syscall backing some
> >> > feature that has yet to be implemented.
> >>
> >> i dont think we should go hassling every arch maintainer when a new
> >> syscall is added that requires arch-specific support for optional
> >> features (especially when said features are debug in nature).  if
> >> wiring up the syscall is the only work because the code is all common
> >> (like the pread/pwrite functions), then np of course.
> >
> > Perhaps not, but I do prefer to have the script whine at me when a new
> > syscall pops up, just so I know when I have to start caring about a new
> > feature.
> 
> assuming you can find any useful info about said feature ;)
> 
> > If a generic implementation becomes available, then it can be
> > supported without having to backtrack and update place-holders.
> 
> this is a good convincing point.  Sam: please drop this patch if you
> did get a chance to queue it up.

OK - dropped.

	Sam
--
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/