[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#647825: udevd[XXX]: unable to receive ctrl connection: Function not implemented



2011/11/11 Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>:
>> --- 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
> linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org with a signed-off-by line as explained in
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

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
> __NR_accept4?
>
>> 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
> only.

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
(http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647825#25). Here's
the direct link to get the file:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=25;filename=test_accept4.c;att=1;bug=647825

     Émeric


Reply to: