From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757644Ab1EYNAe (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 09:00:34 -0400 Received: from mail-bw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.214.46]:55874 "EHLO mail-bw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756863Ab1EYNAc convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 25 May 2011 09:00:32 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=Lx9+YsvB7n1GaLG/7uQw1d4LXVf0hJCj4vpFKSX/WDdrohRB1eYvHJRicUP5UhHZUF wE7h3R10XcdYWnIVaMCp7G5V/CcR376kxgM3R+b0Twtmjaeehrc5u9PquKuW1HKlvJYj MtiLCEQEV0wPFG4LPoP+QOymCLW/VYqxhY5zg= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20110525124741.GC29300@elte.hu> References: <1306048393.4092.8.camel@mulgrave.site> <20110522084224.GA12279@elte.hu> <20110524071628.GA31612@elte.hu> <4508.1306283693@localhost> <20110525082514.GE21552@elte.hu> <20110525124741.GC29300@elte.hu> Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 15:00:30 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: HMhgE7zmynQPdXE8wPHqLiMSlT8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Namespace file descriptors for 2.6.40 From: Geert Uytterhoeven To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, "Eric W. Biederman" , James Bottomley , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux Containers , netdev@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 14:47, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> > But at least the primary, 'native' syscall table of every arch >> > could be kept rather fresh via generic enumeration. >> >> So we can start all over at offset 501 (alpha just started using >> 500) with a unified, clean, and compressed list of syscalls? Or do >> we have some more other-os-compat syscalls around in this range? > > No, that would leave a big hole in the syscall table of most > architectures. Sure, but we could (a) optimize for the case where the syscall number is larger than 500 and/or (b) drop support for syscall numbers smaller than 501, depending on a config option. > So what would be needed is for each architecture to define a 'generic > syscall table base index', ARCH_SYSCALL_BASE or so, and the generic > syscalls would be added for that. > > Alpha would have 501, the others lower numbers. > > The only general assumption we can rely on is that there's a range of > not yet used syscall numbers starting at the end of the current > syscall table. Yep, that would work too. Gr{oetje,eeting}s,                         Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.                                 -- Linus Torvalds