Subject: Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing
To: dledford@redhat.com (Doug Ledford)
Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 18:23:26 +0000 (GMT)
Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox), kaos@ocs.com.au (Keith Owens),
        bcrl@redhat.com (Benjamin LaHaise), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <3C27608B.4030900@redhat.com> from "Doug Ledford" at Dec 24, 2001 12:06:19 PM
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <E16IZl0-0004mP-00@the-village.bc.nu>
From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org

> syscall bindings.  My example was about code using the predefined syscall 
> number for new functions on an older kernel where those functions don't 
> exist, but where they overlap with the older dynamic syscall numbers.  In 
> short, the patch is safe for code that uses the lazy binding, but it can 
> still overlap with future syscall numbers and code that doesn't use the lazy 
> binding but instead uses predefined numbers.

Now I follow you. So if Linus takes that patch he needs to allocate a block
of per architecture dynamic syscall number space for it to use. Negative
syscall numbers seem the most promising approach ?
-
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/