About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Fri 19 Dec 2003 - 01:00:35 GMT

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 12:55:35PM -0700, Grant Grundler wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 05:28:09PM +0100, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> > personally, I believe that the whole syscall number
> > allocation per architecture is broken by design,
> No it's definitely not.

since you removed it from the original context ...

I agree from a technical point of view, but not from
the developer's perspective (who just want's a syscall
for whatever arch independant use ...)

> Binary compatibility with other OS's is an arch specific problem.

for sure it is, but I don't see a relation there ...

> In our case, any chance of support for HPUX would
> require reserving HPUX syscall numbers and provide
> appropriate wrappers in the kernel to support it.

so where is the problem, having an additional offset/info
in the macro defining the syscall can handle that, why
has it to be a different numbering for 'linux' syscalls?

> And I don't see why the value of a syscall matters.

it doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter to me ...

> Just use the right header files and it should work on any arch.

right, but getting one syscall for every arch, seems
like a jigsaw puzzle, as the original thread shows ...


> grant
> _______________________________________________
> parisc-linux mailing list
> parisc-linux_at_lists.parisc-linux.org
> http://lists.parisc-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/parisc-linux
Vserver mailing list

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view
[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Fri 19 Dec 2003 - 01:02:05 GMT by hypermail 2.1.3