On 09/18/2007 04:07 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:47:31AM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> On 09/17/2007 11:41 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
Hi!
>>> Hi Oliver!
>>>
...
As these additions are quite new to upst
On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 10:47:31AM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
> On 09/17/2007 11:41 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >
> > Hi Oliver!
> >
> >> ...
> >> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
> >> ha
On 09/18/2007 11:11 AM, Sergey Tikhonov wrote:
> Oliver Falk wrote:
>> On 09/17/2007 11:22 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>>>
At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
added syscalls __NR_openat (
Oliver Falk wrote:
On 09/17/2007 11:22 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
Why did your numbers differ from
On 09/17/2007 11:22 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
>> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
>
> Why did your numbers differ from the numbers that were use
On 09/17/2007 11:15 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Oliver Falk wrote:
>> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
>> have patched it since a while now (I don't know about other Alpha ports;
>> Debian folks may speak up now!), I would suggest to use the same
>> 'ordering
On 09/17/2007 11:41 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> Hi!
>
> Hi Oliver!
>
>> ...
>> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
>> have patched it since a while now (I don't know about other Alpha ports;
>> Debia
Oliver Falk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
>
> However, since 2.6.23 these syscall where added upstream, but with
> different syscall numbers; What happens is the following
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Oliver!
>...
> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
> have patched it since a while now (I don't know about other Alpha ports;
> Debian folks may speak up now!), I would suggest to use the sa
On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Oliver!
> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
Why did your numbers differ from the numbers that were used in the
upstream kernel?
The
Oliver Falk wrote:
>
> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
> have patched it since a while now (I don't know about other Alpha ports;
> Debian folks may speak up now!), I would suggest to use the same
> 'ordering' of the syscalls upstream and add the new syscal
Oliver Falk schrieb:
> Hi!
>
> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
>
> However, since 2.6.23 these syscall where added upstream, but with
> different syscall numbers; What happens is the following:
>
> * gl
12 matches
Mail list logo
