Re: `new' syscalls for m68k
- To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
- Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>, Debian GNU/Linux m68k <debian-68k@lists.debian.org>, uClinux list <uclinux-dev@uclinux.org>, Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
- Subject: Re: `new' syscalls for m68k
- From: Herbert Poetzl <herbert@13thfloor.at>
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 15:08:44 +0200
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20040913130844.GB1774@MAIL.13thfloor.at>
- Mail-followup-to: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>, Debian GNU/Linux m68k <debian-68k@lists.debian.org>, uClinux list <uclinux-dev@uclinux.org>, Linux Kernel Development <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] Pine.GSO.4.58.0409131316430.21429@waterleaf.sonytel.be>
- References: <[🔎] Pine.LNX.4.58.0409102250300.24607@anakin> <[🔎] 1094852893.18235.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <[🔎] 20040912212244.GC24240@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <[🔎] Pine.GSO.4.58.0409131316430.21429@waterleaf.sonytel.be>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 01:17:10PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 10:48:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > On Gwe, 2004-09-10 at 21:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > > - What about sys_vserver()?
> >
> > I would be happy to add a syscall reservation
> > to the list of already reserved syscalls for
> > i386, x86_64, s390, sparc/64, sh3/4, ppc/64
> > and mips * ...
>
> Also for m68k?
of course, linux-vserver is except for 2-3 tiny
arch specific modifications which might go away
sooner or later (ptrace and uname) completely
arch agnostic, so there should be no problem
using it on m68k ...
TIA,
Herbert
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>
> Geert
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
>
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
> -- Linus Torvalds
Reply to: