Re: 2.6.23 alpha unistd.h changes

[Oliver Falk <oliver@linux-kernel.at>]

Oliver Falk schrieb:
> Hi!
> 
> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
> 
> However, since 2.6.23 these syscall where added upstream, but with
> different syscall numbers; What happens is the following:
> 
> * glibc 2.6.90 compiled with 2.6.23 headers installed
> * kernel 2.6.21 (our patched headers in place, different syscall
> 'ordering'/numbers) installed
> 
> [root@tyskie ~]# uname -r; touch x; rm -f x
> 2.6.23-0.145.rc4.fc8
> rm: cannot remove `x': File exists
> 
> :-( I don't want to live without rm :-P and chmod doesn't work as well...
> 
> If I start 2.6.15, where these syscalls where not in place, it works
> just fine. If I install old glibc 2.6 (compiled against 2.6.21 headers)
> and kernel 2.6.21 also everything is fine.
> 
> Final test was now:
> * Boot kernel 2.6.23 and glibc 2.6.90 (compiled against 2.6.23 headers),
> also everything seems to work.
> 
> As these additions are quite new to upstream kernel, but at Alphacore we
> have patched it since a while now (I don't know about other Alpha ports;
> Debian folks may speak up now!), I would suggest to use the same
> 'ordering' of the syscalls upstream and add the new syscalls that we had
> not in place, but are now upstream to the end of our 'old' list.
> 
> I have attached our patch that we used for 2.6.21.
> 
> 
> Please let me know if that's fine everyone and keep me posted directly
> and only via m/l, as I might miss the mail then...

Attached patch should bring ordering back to what we had at AC.
systbls.S should be ordered as well, but from functional perspective, I
don't worry about that for now :-P

-of

Attachment: unistd.h.old_syscall_ordering.patch
Description: Binary data