lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 5/6] parisc: wire up rseq system call
Hi Firoz,

On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:49 AM Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 11:36, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On 08.10.2018 07:52, Firoz Khan wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Oct 2018 at 11:11, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de> wrote:
> > >> On 08.10.2018 07:16, Firoz Khan wrote:
> > >>> Signed-off-by: Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@linaro.org>
> > >>> ---
> > >>> arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl | 3 ++-
> > >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >>>
> > >>> diff --git a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> > >>> index 4e85293..4334bb7 100644
> > >>> --- a/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> > >>> +++ b/arch/parisc/kernel/syscalls/syscall.tbl
> > >>> @@ -349,4 +349,5 @@
> > >>> 347 common preadv2 sys_preadv2 compat_sys_preadv2
> > >>> 348 common pwritev2 sys_pwritev2 compat_sys_pwritev2
> > >>> 349 common statx sys_statx
> > >>> -350 common io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents compat_sys_io_pgetevents
> > >>> \ No newline at end of file
> > >>> +350 common io_pgetevents sys_io_pgetevents compat_sys_io_pgetevents
> > >>> +351 common rseq sys_rseq compat_sys_rseq
> > >>
> > >> You can't add the rseq syscall for parisc yet.
> > >> It needs additional code in the kernel for parisc which hasn't been tested yet.
> > >> See my initial untested patch at https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10495209/
> > >
> > > Thanks for your update!
> > >
> > > When I compiled the kernel I got below warnings.
> > >
> > > <stdin>:696:2: warning: #warning syscall nfsservctl not implemented [-Wcpp]
> > > <stdin>:1335:2: warning: #warning syscall rseq not implemented [-Wcpp]
> > >
> > > I added an IGNORE entry nfsservctl in script/checksyscalls.sh because this
> > > syscall is gone. But we definitely have to keep rseq entry on parisc
> > > architecture.
> >
> > I prefer to keep the warning for rseq for now.
>
> I'm fine with this.
>
> > It reminds me that we still may want the rseq syscall.
> > If the warning is a problem, you may simply add the __IGNORE_rseq define.
>
> But I still feel to keep an IGNORE entry, so once you test your patch; we can
> remove IGNORE entry and update the syscall.tbl.

If the warning is bogus (e.g. obsolete syscall), an IGNORE entry
should be added.
If the warning is due to a not-yet-implemented feature, IMHO it should not be
silenced, as that would give the false impression that the feature is
present and
implemented.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-08 10:24    [W:0.106 / U:10.864 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site