| Message ID | 1539337442-3676-6-git-send-email-firoz.khan@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | parisc: system call table generation support | expand |
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:45 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote: > > Wire up rseq system call requires an architecture specific > implementation as it not present now. > > Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> Didn't we conclude that this should be skipped? Arnd
Hi Arnd, On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:26, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:45 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > Wire up rseq system call requires an architecture specific > > implementation as it not present now. > > > > Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> > > Didn't we conclude that this should be skipped? Helge told "I prefer to keep the warning for rseq for now. It reminds me that we still may want the rseq syscall. If the warning is a problem, you may simply add the __IGNORE_rseq define." I chose this option; I feel it looks clean "# rseq requires an architecture specific implementation" in syscall.tbl hopefully remind him to add rseq syscall implementation in this architecture. Firoz > > Arnd
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:16 PM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote: > > Hi Arnd, > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:26, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:45 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > > Wire up rseq system call requires an architecture specific > > > implementation as it not present now. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> > > > > Didn't we conclude that this should be skipped? > > Helge told "I prefer to keep the warning for rseq for now. > It reminds me that we still may want the rseq syscall. > If the warning is a problem, you may simply add the __IGNORE_rseq define." > > I chose this option; I feel it looks clean > "# rseq requires an architecture specific implementation" in syscall.tbl > hopefully remind him to add rseq syscall implementation in this architecture. > But he said he wants the warning instead. Arnd
On 12.10.2018 13:52, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:16 PM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Arnd, >> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:26, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:45 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> Wire up rseq system call requires an architecture specific >>>> implementation as it not present now. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> >>> >>> Didn't we conclude that this should be skipped? >> >> Helge told "I prefer to keep the warning for rseq for now. >> It reminds me that we still may want the rseq syscall. >> If the warning is a problem, you may simply add the __IGNORE_rseq define." >> >> I chose this option; I feel it looks clean >> "# rseq requires an architecture specific implementation" in syscall.tbl >> hopefully remind him to add rseq syscall implementation in this architecture. > > But he said he wants the warning instead. Correct. Firoz, please simply drop this patch completely. That way one will see generated warnings about the missing rseq (which is what we want). Thanks, Helge
Hi Arnd, Helge, On Sat, 13 Oct 2018 at 01:53, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote: > > On 12.10.2018 13:52, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 12:16 PM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Arnd, > >> > >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 at 15:26, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 11:45 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Wire up rseq system call requires an architecture specific > >>>> implementation as it not present now. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> > >>> > >>> Didn't we conclude that this should be skipped? > >> > >> Helge told "I prefer to keep the warning for rseq for now. > >> It reminds me that we still may want the rseq syscall. > >> If the warning is a problem, you may simply add the __IGNORE_rseq define." > >> > >> I chose this option; I feel it looks clean > >> "# rseq requires an architecture specific implementation" in syscall.tbl > >> hopefully remind him to add rseq syscall implementation in this architecture. > > > > But he said he wants the warning instead. > > Correct. > Firoz, please simply drop this patch completely. > That way one will see generated warnings about the missing rseq (which is what > we want). Sure. will do! Firoz > > Thanks, > Helge
diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl index 7c9f268..91317be 100644 --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl @@ -366,4 +366,6 @@ 347 common preadv2 sys_preadv2 compat_sys_preadv2 348 common pwritev2 sys_pwritev2 compat_sys_pwritev2 349 common statx sys_statx -350 common io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents compat_sys_io_pgetevents \ No newline at end of file +350 common io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents compat_sys_io_pgetevents +# rseq requires an architecture specific implementation +351 common rseq sys_rseq
Wire up rseq system call requires an architecture specific implementation as it not present now. Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> --- arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)