On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 20:05:31 +0200
Heiko Carstens <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Alternatively I can push them directly to Linus along with other ext4
> > patches. We can drop the s390 patch if Martin or Heiko wants to wire
> > it up themselves.
>
> Yes, please drop the s390 patch. In general it seems to be better if only
> one architecture gets a syscall wired up initially and let other arches
> follow later.
Yep.
otoh, fallocate() was special, because we had so many problems working out
how to organise the args so that certain kooky architectures can implement
it.
> Just wondering if the x86_64 compat syscall gets ever fixed? I think
> I mentioned already three or four times to Amit that it is broken.
> Or is it that nobody cares? Dunno..
>
> In addition there used to be a somewhat inofficial rule that new syscalls
> have to come with a test program, so people can easily test if they wired
> up the syscall correctly.
Yes please. I normally just slam the whole .c file into the changelog.
I'd support an ununofficial rule that submitters of new syscalls also raise
a patch against LTP, come to that...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
