Re: [uClinux-dev] Re: `new' syscalls for m68k
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Paul Mundt wrote:
> 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.
We would just add it at the end? No compatibility problem. Syscall numbers are
different on different architectures anyway.
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: