Re: [uml-devel] Re: [stable] [patch 3/8] uml: quick fix syscall table [urgent]
Blaisorblade <blaisorblade <at> yahoo.it>
2005-04-01 20:45:43 GMT
On Wednesday 30 March 2005 21:05, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 07:33:48PM +0200, blaisorblade <at> yahoo.it wrote:
> > CC: <stable <at> 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