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 ...
> parisc-linux mailing list
Vserver mailing list