On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:05:31 +0200 Heiko Carstens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Alternatively I can push them directly to Linus along with other ext4 > > patches. We can drop the s390 patch if Martin or Heiko wants to wire > > it up themselves. > > Yes, please drop the s390 patch. In general it seems to be better if only > one architecture gets a syscall wired up initially and let other arches > follow later. Yep. otoh, fallocate() was special, because we had so many problems working out how to organise the args so that certain kooky architectures can implement it. > Just wondering if the x86_64 compat syscall gets ever fixed? I think > I mentioned already three or four times to Amit that it is broken. > Or is it that nobody cares? Dunno.. > > In addition there used to be a somewhat inofficial rule that new syscalls > have to come with a test program, so people can easily test if they wired > up the syscall correctly. Yes please. I normally just slam the whole .c file into the changelog. I'd support an ununofficial rule that submitters of new syscalls also raise a patch against LTP, come to that... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/