Around Sun 27 Jan 2013 20:30:09 +0000 or thereabout, Al Viro wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 08:57:14PM +0100, Hans-Christian Egtvedt wrote: >> Around Sun 27 Jan 2013 13:50:15 +0100 or thereabout, Matthias Brugger wrote: >> > This patch adds dummy syscalls so that compiling >> > for this architecture does not provoke warnings when >> > checksyscalls.sh is called. >> >> Does any of these syscalls take more than 5 arguments? If so, it is also >> needed to do some stack handling. I would rather not add syscalls that cause >> the kernel to misbehave. > > BTW, it might make sense to teach SYSCALL_DEFINE6 to generate such a wrapper > on avr32. How about something along the lines of > * SYSCALL_DEFINE6(foo, ...) generating (via asm volatile, right next to > sys_foo()) > __sys_##foo: > pushm lr > st.w --sp, r3 > call sys_##foo > sub sp, -4 > popm pc > * SYSCALL_DEFINE[0..5](foo, ...) generating > SYSCALL_ALIAS(__sys_foo, sys_foo) > * syscall_table.S beginning with > .section .rodata,"a",@progbits > .type sys_call_table,@object > .global sys_call_table > .align 2 > #define SYS(name) __sys_##name > sys_call_table: > SYS(restart_syscall) > SYS(exit) > SYS(fork) > ... > > If you are OK with going that way, I could probably put together patches doing > just that. Note that for rt_sigsuspend/rt_sigreturn/sigaltstack the wrappers > are not needed at all - they can just use current_pt_regs() in syscall body. > IOW, all of syscall-stubs.S could be killed.
Nice, could you put together the preprocessor stuff in a patch? It would be great to not having to write a re-occuring stub for each syscall that has 6+ arguments. Thanks for looking at this. -- mvh Hans-Christian Egtvedt -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
