On Wed, Jun 03, 2015 at 01:36:47PM +0200, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 06/03/2015 06:20 PM, Jesper Nilsson wrote:
> > On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 03:48:12PM +0200, Chen Gang wrote:
> >> The related warnings:
> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5...@gmail.com>
> > Thanks and applied, sorry for the long delay, I had to rewrite the patch a
> > bit
> > since the v10 and v32 does not have the same standard in prefixing
> > underscores.
> > Also, to be safe I also bumped the NR_syscalls as below.
> >
>
> Oh, it doesn't matter, everyone's time resources are expensive, so I
> should/can understand your delay response.
Thanks for understanding.
> Sorry for my carelessness: use "_sys*", and keep original NR_syscalls no
> touch. And also 3 additional things I guess we may need a look:
>
> - For v10, need we also use "sys*" instead of "_sys*"?
No, the trick here is that v10 and v32 uses different standards
with regards to prefixing underscore. I'm hoping to fix that someday.
> - Most archs do not implement seccomp and bpf, which can pass building,
> but will return -ENOSYS during running. Need we left them still as
> warnings? (I guess, it depends on the maintainer's taste).
Well, I don't have any strong feelings in either direction. :-)
> - In the latest next tree, it also add additional userfaultfd syscall,
> need we add it, too?
Hm, haven't seen that syscall, I'm guessing it's in linux-next?
/^JN - Jesper Nilsson
--
Jesper Nilsson -- jesper.nils...@axis.com
--
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/
