Re: [patch] Assigning syscall numbers for testing
Andreas Steinmetz (email@example.com)
Tue, 25 Dec 2001 00:43:42 +0100 (CET)
On 24-Dec-2001 Edgar Toernig wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 07:05:31PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>> > > it. However, I think it needs to be allocated *regardless* of whether
>> > > Linus
>> > > takes the patch into his kernel. Even if the patch is simply used
>> > > outside
>> > > Linus's kernel, it still needs the allocation to truly be safe.
>> > Negative numbers are safe until Linus has 2^31 syscalls, at which point
>> > quite frankly we would have a few other problems including the fact that
>> > the syscall table won't fit in kernel mapped memory.
>> Please leave the allocation of the exact number space to the port
>> maintainers discression.
> Why not assign 1 syscall that gets the name of an experimental syscall
> as its first argument and does the demultiplexing?
Please, no multiplexing. A well defined range (small as it may be) open to
developers (and thus collision) will do.
> Ciao, ET.
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
D.O.M. Datenverarbeitung GmbH
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to email@example.com
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/