Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964924AbWEUTiT (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2006 15:38:19 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964927AbWEUTiT (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2006 15:38:19 -0400 Received: from mailout.stusta.mhn.de ([141.84.69.5]:3602 "HELO mailout.stusta.mhn.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S964924AbWEUTiS (ORCPT ); Sun, 21 May 2006 15:38:18 -0400 Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 21:38:18 +0200 From: Adrian Bunk To: Dave Jones , Ulrich Drepper , Chris Wedgwood , dragoran , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.de Subject: Re: IA32 syscall 311 not implemented on x86_64 Message-ID: <20060521193818.GE3339@stusta.de> References: <44702650.30507@feuerpokemon.de> <20060521085015.GB2535@taniwha.stupidest.org> <20060521160332.GA8250@redhat.com> <20060521185000.GB8250@redhat.com> <20060521185610.GC8250@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060521185610.GC8250@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1554 Lines: 48 On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 02:56:10PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > Actually it is kinda throttled, but only on process name. > This patch just removes that stuff completely. > (Also removes a bunch of trailing whitespace) > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jones > > --- linux-2.6.16.noarch/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c~ 2006-05-21 14:50:57.000000000 -0400 > +++ linux-2.6.16.noarch/arch/x86_64/ia32/sys_ia32.c 2006-05-21 14:51:48.000000000 -0400 > @@ -522,17 +522,9 @@ sys32_waitpid(compat_pid_t pid, unsigned > } > > int sys32_ni_syscall(int call) > -{ > - struct task_struct *me = current; > - static char lastcomm[sizeof(me->comm)]; > - > - if (strncmp(lastcomm, me->comm, sizeof(lastcomm))) { > - printk(KERN_INFO "IA32 syscall %d from %s not implemented\n", > - call, me->comm); > - strncpy(lastcomm, me->comm, sizeof(lastcomm)); > - } > - return -ENOSYS; > -} > +{ > + return -ENOSYS; > +} >... Why can't we remove sys32_ni_syscall() and call sys_ni_syscall() instead if all we want to do is to return -ENOSYS? cu Adrian -- "Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. "Only a promise," Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed - 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/