Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64

[Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>]

On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 09:38:18PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
 > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 02:56:10PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > > 
 > > Actually it is kinda throttled, but only on process name.
 > > This patch just removes that stuff completely.
 > > (Also removes a bunch of trailing whitespace)
 > > 
 > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
 > > 
 > > --- linux-2.6.16.noarch/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c~	2006-05-21 14:50:57.000000000 -0400
 > > +++ linux-2.6.16.noarch/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c	2006-05-21 14:51:48.000000000 -0400
 > > @@ -522,17 +522,9 @@ sys32_waitpid(compat_pid_t pid, unsigned
 > >  }
 > >  
 > >  int sys32_ni_syscall(int call)
 > > -{ 
 > > -	struct task_struct *me = current;
 > > -	static char lastcomm[sizeof(me->comm)];
 > > -
 > > -	if (strncmp(lastcomm, me->comm, sizeof(lastcomm))) {
 > > -		printk(KERN_INFO "IA32 syscall %d from %s not implemented\n",
 > > -		       call, me->comm);
 > > -		strncpy(lastcomm, me->comm, sizeof(lastcomm));
 > > -	} 
 > > -	return -ENOSYS;	       
 > > -} 
 > > +{
 > > +	return -ENOSYS;
 > > +}
 > >...
 > 
 > Why can't we remove sys32_ni_syscall() and call sys_ni_syscall() 
 > instead if all we want to do is to return -ENOSYS?

We could, though it's a more invasive patch, which would probably sprinkle
extra includes/externs over multiple files, for no practical gain
over having this tiny function isolated to this file.

		Dave

-- 
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/