Le 15/04/2014 17:02, One Thousand Gnomes a écrit : > On Tue, 15 Apr 2014 15:42:51 +0200 > Emmanuel Colbus <ecol...@manux.info> wrote: > >> Continuing the discussion regarding syscalls, I have a question >> regarding vector 0x80. >> >> As I mentionned earlier, my OS's internals are very different from >> Linux's, thus I have had a need for a few new syscalls. Since I wanted >> to avoid any collision with Linux, but I also wanted to keep the >> ability to put the syscall table in a single 4096-byte page on 64-bit >> computers (on which I hope to run one day), I chose to start taking >> syscall number 511, and to progress downwards - currently, I'm using >> numbers 511 through 501 included (with a hole at 503, but I'll likely >> fill it again in the future). >> >> Is this okay for you? And in this case, if this isn't asking too much, >> could you avoid using them for now, to avoid any conflict? > > I don't see why the question arises. Your non Linux ABI binaries will be > the ones to use such calls. They can have a different ELF header to Linux > binaries. Linux then won't even try and run them by mistake. At that > point your worst case is Linux calls eventually collide with your own and > you have two tables according to ABI.
Hmmm... I see your point... Currently, I simply use the Linux ELF header, and I hadn't even thought about using a different one. Indeed, using a different header seems like a good solution. OK, unless a better idea arises, I think I'll use this solution. Thanks! Emmanuel -- 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/
