On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
> Hi!
Hi Oliver!
> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We
> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466).
Why did your numbers differ from the numbers that were used in the
upstream kernel?
The Alpha maintainers (Cc's added) might now better what happened here.
> However, since 2.6.23 these syscall where added upstream, but with
> different syscall numbers; What happens is the following:
>...
These syscalls were added in 2.6.22, not 2.6.23, and are therefore in
the officially released kernel since more than two months.
Changing a userspace ABI that has already been part of an officially
released kernel because someone patched other syscall numbers into his
private kernel doesn't sound like a good solution.
> Best,
> Oliver
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed
-
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]
