Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754548AbXIRIyt (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:54:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753508AbXIRIya (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:54:30 -0400 Received: from pils.linux-kernel.at ([213.129.242.82]:32893 "EHLO mail.linux-kernel.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753272AbXIRIy3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:54:29 -0400 Message-ID: <46EF922A.4030206@linux-kernel.at> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:54:02 +0200 From: Oliver Falk Organization: Linux kernel Austria User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.4) Gecko/20070615 Fedora/2.0.0.4-1.fc7 Thunderbird/2.0.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Bunk CC: Richard Henderson , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, axp-list@redhat.com, Jay Estabrook , ac-admin@lists.anotherbloody.com, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru Subject: Re: 2.6.23 alpha unistd.h changes References: <46EEE483.4020209@linux-kernel.at> <20070917212257.GA27980@stusta.de> In-Reply-To: <20070917212257.GA27980@stusta.de> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-lkernAT-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-lkernAT-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-lkernAT-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-4.399, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -2.60) X-MailScanner-From: oliver@linux-kernel.at Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1717 Lines: 41 On 09/17/2007 11:22 PM, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2007 at 10:33:07PM +0200, Oliver Falk wrote: >> At Alphacore we used to patch the kernel headers for a while now; We >> added syscalls __NR_openat (447) until __NR_tee (466). > > Why did your numbers differ from the numbers that were used in the > upstream kernel? Afaik, our patch was done a while ago and nobody every submitted it upstream - don't know why... At AC, we follow RH/Fedora packages and there we had glibc-kernheaders - where our patch originates. When the glibc/kernel packages changed and glibc-kernheaders died, I patched the syscalls into kernel headers; Not thinking that I better submit it upstream. :-( > The Alpha maintainers (Cc's added) might now better what happened here. > >> However, since 2.6.23 these syscall where added upstream, but with >> different syscall numbers; What happens is the following: >> ... > > These syscalls were added in 2.6.22, not 2.6.23, and are therefore in > the officially released kernel since more than two months. Yes, 2.6.22, I've just encountered the problem with 2.6.23... > Changing a userspace ABI that has already been part of an officially > released kernel because someone patched other syscall numbers into his > private kernel doesn't sound like a good solution. As I wrote in my previous mail, that's true, but if Debian folks haven't recompiled glibc against the new headers we can change it without breaking something... -of - 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/