Re: Is sys_sysfs used?

Re: Is sys_sysfs used?

[Andi Kleen]

Patrick Mochel <mochel@osdl.org> writes:

> I see that only one architecture defines __NR_sysfs: x86-64, though it
> appears most architectures mention it in arch/*/kernel/entry.S (or 
> equivalent). 

That's because x86-64 has a merged entry.S/unistd.h. The other architectures
probably use some other name in unistd.h

I think it can be removed safely from the AMD64 64bit table at least.

-Andi

Re: Is sys_sysfs used?

[Andries.Brouwer]

    From: Patrick Mochel <mochel@osdl.org>

    I see that only one architecture defines __NR_sysfs: x86-64, though it
    appears most architectures mention it in arch/*/kernel/entry.S (or 
    equivalent).

There are definitions in include/asm-*/unistd.h.

    Is it used anymore? Would it be possible to remove it? 

There should be a good reason to change the kernel API.
Just "why not remove this probably unused call?" is not a good reason.

(It indeed is almost unused. A grep on a random source tree shows
a use in mount.c in busybox.)

Andries

Re: Is sys_sysfs used?

[Patrick Mochel]

> But what would you use as a place-holder?? There are lots
> of unused sys-calls (break, acct, lock, mpx, etc). You
> certainly can't be running out of numbers, and you certainly
> can't remove  a number and change everything else, you'll
> not get up, even with static-linked files!

Mark it as unused in unistd.h (like #232 for asm-i386), and implement it 
as sys_ni_syscall in the entry.S table. 

Al has already reminded me that it must be marked deprecated for a full 
version before it can be removed, but when/if it does, then that's what 
would happen until some lucky sucker took its place.


	-pat

Re: Is sys_sysfs used?

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Patrick Mochel wrote:

>
> In fs/filesystems.c, we have sys_sysfs:
>
> /*
>  * Whee.. Weird sysv syscall.
>  */
> asmlinkage long sys_sysfs(int option, unsigned long arg1, unsigned long arg2)
> {
> 	...
> }
>
> Which is, as advertised, kinda weird.
>
> I see that only one architecture defines __NR_sysfs: x86-64, though it
> appears most architectures mention it in arch/*/kernel/entry.S (or
> equivalent).
>
> Is it used anymore? Would it be possible to remove it?
>
>
> 	-pat

But what would you use as a place-holder?? There are lots
of unused sys-calls (break, acct, lock, mpx, etc). You
certainly can't be running out of numbers, and you certainly
can't remove  a number and change everything else, you'll
not get up, even with static-linked files!


Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

Is sys_sysfs used?

[Patrick Mochel]

In fs/filesystems.c, we have sys_sysfs: 

/*
 * Whee.. Weird sysv syscall. 
 */
asmlinkage long sys_sysfs(int option, unsigned long arg1, unsigned long arg2)
{
	...
}

Which is, as advertised, kinda weird. 

I see that only one architecture defines __NR_sysfs: x86-64, though it
appears most architectures mention it in arch/*/kernel/entry.S (or 
equivalent). 

Is it used anymore? Would it be possible to remove it? 


	-pat