From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265418AbUEUHGC (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 03:06:02 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265417AbUEUHGC (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 03:06:02 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([66.187.233.31]:27819 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S265418AbUEUHGA (ORCPT ); Fri, 21 May 2004 03:06:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 03:05:52 -0400 (EDT) From: Ingo Molnar X-X-Sender: mingo@devserv.devel.redhat.com To: Andrew Morton cc: Jakub Jelinek , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add FUTEX_CMP_REQUEUE futex op In-Reply-To: <20040520155217.7afad53b.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20040520093817.GX30909@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20040520155217.7afad53b.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 20 May 2004, Andrew Morton wrote: > > asmlinkage long sys_futex(u32 __user *uaddr, int op, int val, > > - struct timespec __user *utime, u32 __user *uaddr2) > > + struct timespec __user *utime, u32 __user *uaddr2, > > + int val3) > > Is it safe to go adding a new argument to an existing syscall in this manner? > > It'll work OK on x86 because of the stack layout but is the same true of > all other supported architectures? we added a new futex paramater once before (the original requeue patch) - so if it broke anything, it didnt break loud enough for anyone to notice :-| Ingo