Subject: Re: sys_recvmmsg: wire up or not?
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
       Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@redhat.com>, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Linux/m68k <linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <200912261212.14264.arnd@arndb.de>
References: <10f740e80912260239n17bbbd08w6c3065c12bde9c95@mail.gmail.com>
	 <200912261212.14264.arnd@arndb.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:20:33 +1100
Message-ID: <1263442833.724.325.camel@pasglop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1140
Lines: 25


> It's also rather inconsistent with the last socket call that was added, sys_accept4.
> Some architectures that normally define socket calls (parisc, sh) are missing both
> accept4 and recvmmsg, while others that don't have recvmsg now get recvmmsg.
> 
> In particular, i386 has recvmmsg now, which caused the warning that you saw.
> I guess that one should be removed, and maybe we need a better logic for
> determining which syscalls you actually want. Deriving it from asm-generic/unistd.h
> instead of arch/x86/include/asm/unistd_32.h is probably better, but would still
> give the wrong answer for multiplexed system calls like socketcall or ipc on 
> existing architectures.

Anything happening here ? We're getting that warning on ppc too despite
the fact that we use socketcall like x86... Should checksyscall be made
smarter or the syscall just removed from x86 ? :-)

Cheers,
Ben.


--
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/