On Mon, Oct 25, 2004 at 05:50:41PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > The syscall after sys_mq_getsetattr and before sys_waitid is reserved > > for kexec, is there some reason that this isn't being filled as a > > sys_ni_syscall for the time being instead? > > I dropped it because there's no implementation for it on m68k anyway. > > We can still add it when needed, right? > It's a multiplatform thing, so there's certainly the possibility of it existing on m68k. You could obviously add it later, but then you would have to shift all of the syscall numbers, which causes problems for anything using older headers where the same number will be mapped to different syscalls entirely in the event of it being added. To me it seems saner just to leave it as a sys_ni_syscall so that it can be added at a later point without worrying about breaking anything else. Anything that's architecture specific you can obviously use for your own purposes, but the ones that are generic and have the potential for being implemented on your architecture should be left in their natural order. At least this is the methodology I've been using for sh and sh64, feel free to ignore as necessary.
Attachment:
pgpmMYdktQQOt.pgp
Description: PGP signature