2006-05-22 21:05:21

by Chuck Ebbert

Subject: [stable][patch] x86_64: fix number of ia32 syscalls

Recent discussions about whether to print a message about unimplemented
ia32 syscalls on x86_64 have missed the real bug: the number of ia32
syscalls is wrong in 2.6.16. Fixing that kills the message.

Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>

--- 2.6.16.17-64.orig/include/asm-x86_64/ia32_unistd.h
+++ 2.6.16.17-64/include/asm-x86_64/ia32_unistd.h
@@ -317,6 +317,6 @@
#define __NR_ia32_ppoll 309
#define __NR_ia32_unshare 310

-#define IA32_NR_syscalls 315 /* must be > than biggest syscall! */
+#define IA32_NR_syscalls 311 /* must be > than biggest syscall! */

#endif /* _ASM_X86_64_IA32_UNISTD_H_ */
--
Chuck

"The x86 isn't all that complex -- it just doesn't make a lot of sense."
-- Mike Johnson

2006-05-22 23:11:40

by Andi Kleen

Subject: Re: [stable][patch] x86_64: fix number of ia32 syscalls

On Monday 22 May 2006 22:59, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Recent discussions about whether to print a message about unimplemented
> ia32 syscalls on x86_64 have missed the real bug: the number of ia32
> syscalls is wrong in 2.6.16. Fixing that kills the message.

There is already a slightly different patch for this in the FF tree.

-Andi

2006-05-22 23:24:23

by Chris Wright

Subject: Re: [stable][patch] x86_64: fix number of ia32 syscalls

* Andi Kleen ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 22:59, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > Recent discussions about whether to print a message about unimplemented
> > ia32 syscalls on x86_64 have missed the real bug: the number of ia32
> > syscalls is wrong in 2.6.16. Fixing that kills the message.
>
> There is already a slightly different patch for this in the FF tree.

OK, if there's smth you think is good for -stable, just send it over.

thanks,
-chris

2006-05-22 23:28:36

by Brian Gerst

Subject: Re: [stable][patch] x86_64: fix number of ia32 syscalls

Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 22 May 2006 22:59, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
>> Recent discussions about whether to print a message about unimplemented
>> ia32 syscalls on x86_64 have missed the real bug: the number of ia32
>> syscalls is wrong in 2.6.16. Fixing that kills the message.
>
> There is already a slightly different patch for this in the FF tree.
>

Where is the FF tree?

--
Brian Gerst

2006-05-23 04:53:03

by Andi Kleen

Subject: Re: [stable][patch] x86_64: fix number of ia32 syscalls

On Tuesday 23 May 2006 01:31, Brian Gerst wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Monday 22 May 2006 22:59, Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> >> Recent discussions about whether to print a message about unimplemented
> >> ia32 syscalls on x86_64 have missed the real bug: the number of ia32
> >> syscalls is wrong in 2.6.16. Fixing that kills the message.
> >
> > There is already a slightly different patch for this in the FF tree.
> >
>
> Where is the FF tree?

ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt/

-Andi

2006-05-23 14:38:49

by Michael Büsch

Subject: Re: [stable][patch] x86_64: fix number of ia32 syscalls

On Monday 22 May 2006 22:59, you wrote:
> Recent discussions about whether to print a message about unimplemented
> ia32 syscalls on x86_64 have missed the real bug: the number of ia32
> syscalls is wrong in 2.6.16. Fixing that kills the message.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chuck Ebbert <[email protected]>
>
> --- 2.6.16.17-64.orig/include/asm-x86_64/ia32_unistd.h
> +++ 2.6.16.17-64/include/asm-x86_64/ia32_unistd.h
> @@ -317,6 +317,6 @@
> #define __NR_ia32_ppoll 309
> #define __NR_ia32_unshare 310
>
> -#define IA32_NR_syscalls 315 /* must be > than biggest syscall! */

Maybe fix the comment so this is more clear, too?
/* must be biggest syscall + 1 */