On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > Hi Davide, > > Davide Libenzi wrote: > > On Mon, 24 Sep 2007, Michael Kerrisk wrote: > >> Is it perhaps not better to group the three syscalls contiguously with > >> respect to syscall numbers? The old timerfd slot can be re-used for some > >> other syscall later. > > > > There's no problem if they're not contiguous. > > I realise there is no problem, in a technical sense. But it strikes me as > more aesthetic to make related syscalls numerically contiguous. Thus, we > see such as the following in the kernel source > > #define __NR_epoll_create 254 > #define __NR_epoll_ctl 255 > #define __NR_epoll_wait 256 > > and > > #define __NR_timer_create 259 > #define __NR_timer_settime (__NR_timer_create+1) > #define __NR_timer_gettime (__NR_timer_create+2) > #define __NR_timer_getoverrun (__NR_timer_create+3) > #define __NR_timer_delete (__NR_timer_create+4) > > and > > #define __NR_inotify_init 291 > #define __NR_inotify_add_watch 292 > #define __NR_inotify_rm_watch 293 > > > Holes, unless filled > > immediately, need to be remembered to be filled. > > Well, in the past it seems they do get filled soon enough though. There's > fair odds that you'll be the one to fill it with the next syscall you write > ;-).
You have to talk to arch mantainers. I do not care. I simply provided the x86 hooks because I tested on x86. - Davide - 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/
