Re: [stable] [patch 3/8] uml: quick fix syscall table [urgent]

From: Greg KH (greg_at_kroah.com)
Date: 03/30/05

  • Next message: Andreas Steinmetz: "2.6.11 acpi battery state readout as source of keyboard/touchpad troubles" 
    Date:	Wed, 30 Mar 2005 11:05:09 -0800
To: blaisorblade@yahoo.it

    On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:33:48PM +0200, blaisorblade@yahoo.it wrote:
    >
    > CC: <stable@kernel.org>
    >
    > *) Uml 2.6.11 does not compile with gcc 2.95.4 because some entries are
    > duplicated, and that GCC does not accept this (unlike gcc 3). Plus various
    > other bugs in the syscall table definitions:
    >
    > *) 223 is a syscall hole (i.e. ni_syscall) only on i386, on x86_64 it's a
    > valid syscall (thus a duplicated one).
    >
    > *) __NR_vserver must be only once with sys_ni_syscall, and not multiple
    > times with different values!
    >
    > *) syscalls duplicated in SUBARCHs and in common files (thus assigning twice
    > to the same array entry and causing the GCC 2.95.4 failure mentioned above):
    > sys_utimes, which is common, and sys_fadvise64_64, sys_statfs64,
    > sys_fstatfs64, which exist only on i386.
    >
    > *) syscalls duplicated in each SUBARCH, to put in common files:
    > sys_remap_file_pages, sys_utimes, sys_fadvise64
    >
    > *) 285 is a syscall hole (i.e. ni_syscall) only on i386, on x86_64 the range
    > does not arrive to that point.
    >
    > *) on x86_64, the macro name is __NR_kexec_load and not __NR_sys_kexec_load.
    > Use the correct name in either case.
    >
    > Note: as you can see, part of the syscall table definition in UML is
    > arch-independent (with everywhere defined syscalls), and part is
    > arch-dependant. This has created confusion (some syscalls are listed in both
    > places, some in the wrong one, some are wrong on one arch or another).
    >
    > Also, as add-ons:
    >
    > *) uses __va_copy instead of va_copy since some old versions of gcc (2.95.4
    > for instance) don't accept va_copy.
    >
    > *) some whitespace cleanups in the syscall table (if you don't like them, feel
    > free to remove them).

    For this to be considered for the -stable tree, can you remove the
    whitespace cleanups, and break this up into different patches for the
    different things you are doing (one thing per patch please.)

    thanks,

    greg k-h
    -
    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/

  • Next message: Andreas Steinmetz: "2.6.11 acpi battery state readout as source of keyboard/touchpad troubles"

    Relevant Pages