Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:10:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:10:48 -0400 Received: from sitemail3.everyone.net ([216.200.145.37]:32924 "HELO omta01.mta.everyone.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 8 Apr 2002 22:10:47 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 19:10:47 -0700 (PDT) From: mark manning To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: syscals Reply-To: mark.manning@computermail.net X-Originating-Ip: [67.241.61.154] Message-Id: <20020409021047.518A53ECC@sitemail.everyone.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org ok - according to unistd.h we now have exactly 256 syscalls allocated (unless im missing something). my code needs to be able to account for every single possible syscall and so i need to be able to store the syscall number in a standard way. not all syscalls are catered for on the outset by at any time the user can say "i need to use syscall x which takes y parameters" and the code will be able to take care of it. the problem is that i am currently reserving only 8 bits for the syscall number. this is ok for now but if we ever get another syscall its going to be unuseable by my existing code :) - should i be reserving 16 bits now in preperation for some new syscalls being added ? - 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/