Subject: Re: What's the point of __KERNEL_SYSCALLS__?
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@debian.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20030921045411.GC13172@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
References: <20030919164044.GF21596@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
	 <20030921045411.GC13172@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <1064131876.3424.20.camel@dhcp23.swansea.linux.org.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 09:11:16 +0100
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1133
Lines: 27

On Sul, 2003-09-21 at 05:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 05:40:44PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > This doesn't seem like a big list to clean up.  Any objections to
> > getting rid of them and making the calls directly?
> 
> Here's a patch that removes them for i386 and parisc.  Other arches can
> catch up as they see fit.  Comments?  I've compiled the files that aren't
> completely arch-specific (eg sparc or m68k).

> -static inline int execve(char *filename, char * argv [],
> -	char * envp[])
> -{
> -	extern int __execve(char *, char **, char **, struct task_struct *);
> -	return __execve(filename, argv, envp, current);
> -}

execve on some platforms relies on the entry stuff. Take a look at the
use of the passed registers in sys_execve on x86 as an example. Simply 
calling sys_execve won't work. The same is true for sys_clone used to
create threads.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/