Re: unimplemented system calls
On Sat, Sep 12, 1998 at 01:25:02PM -0500, Michael Shuey wrote:
> > Just to let you know: after I upgraded using apt to the latest packages, I
> > get lot's of unimplemented system calls (103, 119, etc.) on my sparc running
> > 2.0.34. Don't know if other people noticed the same?
>
> I seem to remember a big stink a while back about unimplemented system calls,
> including 103 & 119. This was fixed in later stable kernel snapshots. I'm
> just guessing here, but it could be that libc6 2.0.95 is using more of these
> syscalls than previous versions, so if you don't have the implementation from
> the latest kernels you're sunk.
>
> Try upgrading to 2.0.35, using the 8-10 snapshot on vger.rutgers.edu. That
> might fix it.
>
I havent tried the 8-10 release, but Dave Miller told me that a fix will be
included in the next 2.0.x release so hopefully you are in luck ;-)
I repost the message I sent out to debian-sparc earlier in August how to fix
the problem. A kernel patch is appended.
The new glibc works really well on my sun4m aka Sparc 10. Unfortunately if
you run a 2.0.x kernel and you don't want to fill up your logs with
Unimplemented Sparc system call 103
or 119
you'll need a kernel patch which I'll attach. 2.1.x should be ok.
DON'T PANIC. The syscalls are ok, the warnings are just annoying.
Greetings,
Christian
--
Christian Meder, email: meder@isr.uni-stuttgart.de
What's the railroad to me ?
I never go to see
Where it ends.
It fills a few hollows,
And makes banks for the swallows,
It sets the sand a-blowing,
And the blackberries a-growing.
(Henry David Thoreau)
--- linux/arch/sparc/kernel/sys_sparc.c-orig Fri Aug 28 13:05:49 1998
+++ linux/arch/sparc/kernel/sys_sparc.c Fri Aug 28 13:06:03 1998
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@
/* Be silent for this one as it is attempted by newer
* 2.1.x module utilities.
*/
- if(regs->u_regs[1] != 184) {
+ if((regs->u_regs[1] != 103) && (regs->u_regs[1] != 119) && (regs->u_regs[1] != 184)) {
printk ("Unimplemented SPARC system call %d\n",(int)regs->u_regs[1]);
show_regs (regs);
}
Reply to: