Re: Bug#647825: udevd[XXX]: unable to receive ctrl connection: Function not implemented
2011/11/11 Ben Hutchings <email@example.com>:
>> --- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/unistd.h 2011-03-15 02:20:32.000000000 +0100
>> +++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/unistd.h 2011-11-10 21:27:31.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -315,11 +315,12 @@
>> #define __NR_fanotify_init 1323
>> #define __NR_fanotify_mark 1324
>> #define __NR_prlimit64 1325
>> +#define __NR_accept4 1326
>> #ifdef __KERNEL__
>> -#define NR_syscalls 302 /* length of syscall table */
>> +#define NR_syscalls 303 /* length of syscall table */
>> * The following defines stop scripts/checksyscalls.sh from complaining about
>> --- a/arch/ia64/kernel/entry.S 2011-03-15 02:20:32.000000000 +0100
>> +++ b/arch/ia64/kernel/entry.S 2011-11-10 21:32:03.000000000 +0100
>> @@ -1771,6 +1771,7 @@
>> data8 sys_fanotify_init
>> data8 sys_fanotify_mark
>> data8 sys_prlimit64 // 1325
>> + data8 sys_accept4
>> .org sys_call_table + 8*NR_syscalls // guard against
>> failures to increase NR_syscalls
>> #endif /* __IA64_ASM_PARAVIRTUALIZED_NATIVE */
> The above changes look reasonable; please send them to
> firstname.lastname@example.org with a signed-off-by line as explained in
OK, will do.
I however imagine that these patches are to be created against current
linux-3.2-rc1 source tree, right? One thing that thus worries me is
that I won't be able to test the resulting kernel, since that the
initramfs-tools 0.99 issue prevents me from running kernel > 2.6.38.
>> However, even with these patches applied, test_accept4 still report
>> that accept4() is not implemented :-(.
> Isn't that because it is using the installed header which doesn't define
>> What am I still missing?
> Don't know can you point to the version of test_accept4 that you are
> using? I only found the original version which is explicitly for x86
Sorry Ben, you were CC'ed too lately in the discussion!
I was referring to the test_accept4.c file that I've modified and
attached in Message #25
the direct link to get the file: