On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:44:20PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> It's nice if you can do so, but I wouldn't suggest that you _have_ to.
> I have to admit that I rarely bother actually wiring new system calls up
> on anything but PowerPC to start with.
>
> The important thing is that you've _considered_ the other architectures,
> and the 32/64 compatibility implications. As long as the API of your new
> system call is sensible and takes that kind of thing into account, it
> should be fine.
Ok. :)
> Had you considered changing the API so that you don't need the
> compatibility wrapper at all? Could you take an integer number of µS or
> ms instead of a struct timespec?
Not before now, but I followed the API specified into RFC 2783 who
specifies struct timespec...
Thanks for your suggestions! I'll send a new patch ASAP!
Rodolfo
--
GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: [email protected]
Linux Device Driver [email protected]
Embedded Systems [email protected]
UNIX programming phone: +39 349 2432127
-
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]
