* [PATCH] add syscalls.h [not found] <20040130163547.2285457b.rddunlap@osdl.org> @ 2004-02-02 6:22 ` Randy.Dunlap 2004-02-02 6:43 ` Andrew Morton 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2004-02-02 6:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: akpm; +Cc: lkml | Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:46:15 -0800 | From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> | Subject: Re: NGROUPS 2.6.2rc2 | | [snip] | rant. We have soooo many syscalls declared in .c files. We had a bug due | to this a while back. Problem is, we have no anointed header in which to | place them. include/linux/syscalls.h would suit. And unistd.h for | arch-specific syscalls. But that's not appropriate to this patch. I am working on this. Is anyone else? I have parts 2.6.1-non-arch* ready for testing, I believe, except that it will likely require more changes/additions. I have begun on 2.6.1-arch* but still have a ways to go. Caveats: I have only patched 2.6.1. I will update patches for 2.6.2-rc-current. I have only tested by building allmodconfig on P4. Have not test-booted yet. Patch files for 2.6.1 are here: http://developer.osdl.org/rddunlap/syscalls/2.6.1-arch-syscalls.diff drivers/macintosh/via-pmu.c | 2 fs/compat.c | 14 --- include/linux/syscalls.h | 173 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ include/linux/sysctl.h | 1 init/do_mounts.h | 15 --- init/do_mounts_devfs.c | 6 - init/initramfs.c | 12 --- kernel/compat.c | 31 ------- kernel/power/disk.c | 3 kernel/power/swsusp.c | 3 kernel/sysctl.c | 2 kernel/uid16.c | 13 --- net/compat.c | 23 ----- 13 files changed, 184 insertions(+), 114 deletions(-) http://developer.osdl.org/rddunlap/syscalls/2.6.1-non-arch-syscalls.diff arch/alpha/kernel/osf_sys.c | 3 -- arch/ia64/ia32/ia32_ioctl.c | 3 -- arch/ia64/ia32/sys_ia32.c | 26 --------------------- arch/mips/kernel/ioctl32.c | 3 -- arch/mips/kernel/irixioctl.c | 4 --- arch/mips/kernel/linux32.c | 13 ---------- arch/mips/kernel/sysirix.c | 15 ------------ arch/parisc/hpux/ioctl.c | 3 -- arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc.c | 14 ----------- arch/parisc/kernel/sys_parisc32.c | 7 ----- arch/ppc64/kernel/ppc_ksyms.c | 2 - arch/ppc64/kernel/sys_ppc32.c | 44 +----------------------------------- arch/s390/kernel/compat_ioctl.c | 3 -- arch/s390/kernel/compat_linux.c | 28 ---------------------- arch/s390/kernel/sys_s390.c | 3 -- arch/sparc/kernel/sunos_ioctl.c | 2 - arch/sparc/kernel/sys_sunos.c | 5 ---- arch/sparc64/kernel/sparc64_ksyms.c | 2 - arch/sparc64/kernel/sunos_ioctl32.c | 3 -- arch/sparc64/kernel/sys_sparc.c | 3 -- arch/sparc64/kernel/sys_sparc32.c | 25 -------------------- arch/sparc64/kernel/sys_sunos32.c | 3 -- arch/sparc64/solaris/ioctl.c | 3 -- arch/sparc64/solaris/socksys.c | 3 -- arch/sparc64/solaris/timod.c | 2 - arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32_ioctl.c | 3 -- arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c | 27 ---------------------- arch/x86_64/kernel/x8664_ksyms.c | 3 -- include/asm-ia64/unistd.h | 5 ++++ include/asm-mips/unistd.h | 5 ++++ include/asm-parisc/unistd.h | 4 +++ include/asm-ppc/unistd.h | 4 +++ include/asm-ppc64/unistd.h | 4 +++ include/asm-sparc/unistd.h | 5 ++++ include/asm-sparc64/unistd.h | 5 ++++ include/asm-v850/unistd.h | 4 +++ include/asm-x86_64/unistd.h | 4 +++ 37 files changed, 67 insertions(+), 228 deletions(-) Do these look OK, as far as they go? or am I way off? -- ~Randy Haven't addressed these yet: sys_brk sys_wait* sys_setuid/gid etc. sys_init/delete_module sys_ni_syscall sys_get/setpriority signal-related syscalls rt-related syscalls sys_execve sys_ptrace sys_newuname schedule-related syscalls sys_fadvise64_64 sys_nfsservctl sys_kill sys_setgroups sys_sethost/domainname sys_umask sys_modify_ldt ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] add syscalls.h 2004-02-02 6:22 ` [PATCH] add syscalls.h Randy.Dunlap @ 2004-02-02 6:43 ` Andrew Morton 2004-02-03 20:29 ` Matt Mackall 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Andrew Morton @ 2004-02-02 6:43 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Randy.Dunlap; +Cc: linux-kernel "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@osdl.org> wrote: > > | Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:46:15 -0800 > | From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> > | Subject: Re: NGROUPS 2.6.2rc2 > | > | > [snip] > | rant. We have soooo many syscalls declared in .c files. We had a bug due > | to this a while back. Problem is, we have no anointed header in which to > | place them. include/linux/syscalls.h would suit. And unistd.h for > | arch-specific syscalls. But that's not appropriate to this patch. > > > I am working on this. Is anyone else? > > I have parts 2.6.1-non-arch* ready for testing, I believe, > except that it will likely require more changes/additions. > > I have begun on 2.6.1-arch* but still have a ways to go. > > Caveats: > I have only patched 2.6.1. I will update patches for 2.6.2-rc-current. > I have only tested by building allmodconfig on P4. > Have not test-booted yet. > > Patch files for 2.6.1 are here: Looks sane to me. + * syscalls.h - Linux syscall interfaces (non-arch-specific) ... +#include <linux/aio_abi.h> +#include <linux/sched.h> +#include <linux/socket.h> +#include <linux/sysctl.h> +#include <linux/time.h> +#include <linux/posix-timers.h> +#include <linux/uio.h> + +#include <asm/signal.h> +#include <asm/stat.h> I'd be inclined to lose the includes and just add forward decls for structs. Of course, you'll need the includes for typedefs. +extern asmlinkage long sys_unlink(const char __user *pathname); +extern asmlinkage long sys_chmod(const char __user *filename, mode_t mode); +extern asmlinkage long sys_fchmod(unsigned int fd, mode_t mode); Maybe lose the `extern' too. It's just a waste of space. I normally put it in for consistency if the surrounding code is done that way, but for a new header file, why bother? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] add syscalls.h 2004-02-02 6:43 ` Andrew Morton @ 2004-02-03 20:29 ` Matt Mackall 2004-02-03 20:40 ` Richard B. Johnson 2004-02-03 21:18 ` Randy.Dunlap 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Matt Mackall @ 2004-02-03 20:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Andrew Morton; +Cc: Randy.Dunlap, linux-kernel On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:43:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > +extern asmlinkage long sys_unlink(const char __user *pathname); > +extern asmlinkage long sys_chmod(const char __user *filename, mode_t mode); > +extern asmlinkage long sys_fchmod(unsigned int fd, mode_t mode); > > Maybe lose the `extern' too. It's just a waste of space. I normally put > it in for consistency if the surrounding code is done that way, but for a > new header file, why bother? I'd really like to see the extern go, if only to discourage that particular bit of cargo cult programming. There are actually people who think it serves a purpose.. -- Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] add syscalls.h 2004-02-03 20:29 ` Matt Mackall @ 2004-02-03 20:40 ` Richard B. Johnson 2004-02-03 21:18 ` Randy.Dunlap 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Richard B. Johnson @ 2004-02-03 20:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Mackall; +Cc: Andrew Morton, Randy.Dunlap, linux-kernel On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:43:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > +extern asmlinkage long sys_unlink(const char __user *pathname); > > +extern asmlinkage long sys_chmod(const char __user *filename, mode_t mode); > > +extern asmlinkage long sys_fchmod(unsigned int fd, mode_t mode); > > > > Maybe lose the `extern' too. It's just a waste of space. I normally put > > it in for consistency if the surrounding code is done that way, but for a > > new header file, why bother? > > I'd really like to see the extern go, if only to discourage that > particular bit of cargo cult programming. There are actually people > who think it serves a purpose.. > > -- > Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting THey got 'em advertised on eBay for $10.99 ;^ Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.24 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips). Note 96.31% of all statistics are fiction. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] add syscalls.h 2004-02-03 20:29 ` Matt Mackall 2004-02-03 20:40 ` Richard B. Johnson @ 2004-02-03 21:18 ` Randy.Dunlap 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Randy.Dunlap @ 2004-02-03 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Matt Mackall; +Cc: akpm, linux-kernel On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 14:29:16 -0600 Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> wrote: | On Sun, Feb 01, 2004 at 10:43:44PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: | > +extern asmlinkage long sys_unlink(const char __user *pathname); | > +extern asmlinkage long sys_chmod(const char __user *filename, mode_t mode); | > +extern asmlinkage long sys_fchmod(unsigned int fd, mode_t mode); | > | > Maybe lose the `extern' too. It's just a waste of space. I normally put | > it in for consistency if the surrounding code is done that way, but for a | > new header file, why bother? | | I'd really like to see the extern go, if only to discourage that | particular bit of cargo cult programming. There are actually people | who think it serves a purpose.. They are already gone in the v2 version of the patch. -- ~Randy kernel-janitors project: http://janitor.kernelnewbies.org/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-03 21:24 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <20040130163547.2285457b.rddunlap@osdl.org>
2004-02-02 6:22 ` [PATCH] add syscalls.h Randy.Dunlap
2004-02-02 6:43 ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-03 20:29 ` Matt Mackall
2004-02-03 20:40 ` Richard B. Johnson
2004-02-03 21:18 ` Randy.Dunlap
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®