Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing

[Keith Owens <kaos@ocs.com.au>]

On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:04:24 -0800 (PST), 
Chris Vandomelen <chrisv@b0rked.dhs.org> wrote:
>> No, that's not the case I'm talking about: what happens when a vendor
>> starts shipping this patch and Linus decides to add a new syscall that
>> uses a syscall number that the old kernel used for dynamic syscalls?
>
>If I understood correctly, /proc/dynamic_syscalls contains the information
>about dynamically registered syscall name->number associations, which are
>placed beyond the end of the currently registered set of syscalls. Later
>on down the line when we have 500 syscalls (exaggeration of course), the
>patch should still work as intended by just telling it that the empty
>slots in the syscall table begin at 501. So now your syscall that was
>registered as syscall 241 with the dynamic syscall patch in 2.4.17 now
>gets number 502 (or anything else for that matter) with the same patch
>under 5.4.23. Whee.

I'm glad somebody understands the code :).