On 09/17/2007 11:22 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote:
>> 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?
Afaik, our patch was done a while ago and nobody every submitted it
upstream - don't know why...
At AC, we follow RH/Fedora packages and there we had glibc-kernheaders -
where our patch originates. When the glibc/kernel packages changed and
glibc-kernheaders died, I patched the syscalls into kernel headers; Not
thinking that I better submit it upstream. :-(
> 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.
Yes, 2.6.22, I've just encountered the problem with 2.6.23...
> 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.
As I wrote in my previous mail, that's true, but if Debian folks haven't
recompiled glibc against the new headers we can change it without
breaking something...
-of
-
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]
