Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALCETrVPcgKarpTOsdTfODkNA76W04WvW+tNWoOx6+Em0KS04A@mail.gmail.com>
 <87efbggly5.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <87efbggly5.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>
From:   Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:23:09 -0800
Message-ID: <CALCETrVJO-GSbQCGNJS_F1ZswG15aWOdX7onWFYgTVhh97WbWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cleaning up numbering for new x86 syscalls?
To:     Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Cc:     Andrew Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Tycho Andersen <tycho@tycho.ws>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@google.com>,
        "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@redhat.com>,
        Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:03 AM Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> * Andy Lutomirski:
>
> > 5. Adjust the scripts so that we only have to wire up new syscalls
> > once.  They'll have a nr above 1024, and they'll have the same nr on
> > all x86 variants.
>
> Is there a sufficiently sized gap on all other architectures as well?
> The restriction to the x86 variants seems arbitrary to me.
>

Fair point.  We have this shiny "generic" syscall list.  Maybe we can
get x86 synced up with it for new syscalls.