Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:47:06 -0600
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       zaitcev@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch] arch-specific cond_syscall usage issues
Message-ID: <20040114194706.GI28521@waste.org>
References: <20040110032915.GW18208@waste.org> <20040109193753.3c158b3b.akpm@osdl.org> <20040114161306.GA16950@stop.crashing.org> <20040114113107.786c237a.akpm@osdl.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040114113107.786c237a.akpm@osdl.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1222
Lines: 26

On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 11:31:07AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Tom Rini <trini@kernel.crashing.org> wrote:
> >
> >  As has been previously noted, the cond_syscall is only ever cared about
> >  on PPC when you try for !PCI.  And this only happens realistically now,
> >  on MPC8xx (it's usually present on IBM 4xx, and lets ignore APUS).
> >  MPC8xx support has been broken for a while, but hopefully will get fixed
> >  'soon'.
> > 
> >  So can we please move this cond_syscall into kernel/sys.c ?
> 
> Spose so.  Are we sure it shouldn't be inside soem ppc-specfic ifdef?

Probably not worth the trouble as it's a weak symbol - it can't
interfere with anything. In the unlikely case that some other arch
intends to define it and fails to, well, they'll get sys_ni_syscall
instead. By that logic, I've done the same with some of the stuff I've
made conditional for x86, like sys_vm86 and the like.

-- 
Matt Mackall : http://www.selenic.com : Linux development and consulting
-
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/