Re: [PATCH] selftests/x86: Update map_shadow_stack syscall nr

[Edgecombe, Rick P]

On Fri, 2023-09-01 at 15:19 -0700, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> My suggestion is originating from the belief that at somepoint the
> community decided that all *new* system call numbers would be the
> consistent across architectures (except alpha). So that would mean
> syscall number 453 has to be reserved on others even if it is an
> x86-only syscall.
> 
> If we don't do this, and let say a generic sys_foo comes along which
> uses the next available syscall number 453 on other archs, it would
> lead
> to an inconsistency because 453 it is already used up on x86.
> 
> My memory of this is a bit hazy from my implementation of User
> Interrupts more than a couple of years back. Also, I couldn't find
> any
> handy documentation to support my belief. I'll try to dig more.

Putting reservations in sounds like a good idea in any case. I take it
you would like to send the patch? Otherwise let me know.