Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:10:53 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:10:44 -0500 Received: from mail.ocs.com.au ([203.34.97.2]:5899 "HELO mail.ocs.com.au") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 23 Dec 2001 00:10:32 -0500 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.2 06/23/2000 with nmh-1.0.4 From: Keith Owens To: Chris Vandomelen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:04:24 -0800." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 16:10:21 +1100 Message-ID: <22263.1009084221@ocs3.intra.ocs.com.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:04:24 -0800 (PST), Chris Vandomelen wrote: >> No, that's not the case I'm talking about: what happens when a vendor >> starts shipping this patch and Linus decides to add a new syscall that >> uses a syscall number that the old kernel used for dynamic syscalls? > >If I understood correctly, /proc/dynamic_syscalls contains the information >about dynamically registered syscall name->number associations, which are >placed beyond the end of the currently registered set of syscalls. Later >on down the line when we have 500 syscalls (exaggeration of course), the >patch should still work as intended by just telling it that the empty >slots in the syscall table begin at 501. So now your syscall that was >registered as syscall 241 with the dynamic syscall patch in 2.4.17 now >gets number 502 (or anything else for that matter) with the same patch >under 5.4.23. Whee. I'm glad somebody understands the code :). - 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/