Re: [PATCH] Complain about missing system calls.
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Date: 2007-03-09 20:54:10
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml
Russell King wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 11:40:08AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:quoted
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:quoted
Not everybody has a simple indexed list of pointers :) For example, for vax-linux, we use a struct per syscall with the expected number of on-stack longwords for the call. So if something "new" is coming up, please keep in mind that it should be flexible enough to represent that. :)I discussed with Al Viro a while ago about using something like the SYSCALLS.def file from klibc as the source format for the system calls. That would deal very flexibly with almost all kinds of stub generation.Hopefully with this idea in place, we can spot new syscalls before the final release of the kernel (maybe kautobuild can help there) and fix any silly system call argument ordering which requires different architectures to have different syscall prototypes (eg, sys_arm_fadvise64_64 vs sys_fadvise64_64, sys_arm_sync_file_range vs sys_sync_file_range).
That would definitely be nice.
Otherwise the SYSCALLS.def file will probably end up being full of ifdefs.
... which exactly mirrors the pain and suffering which libc maintainers have to deal with. The amount of time I spent per line of code in klibc is quite high, in part because I wanted it to be as self-porting as was possible. I've really tried to avoid arch-specific hacks, and yet there are more there than there should be, in large part because of unusable or missing kernel header exports. -hpa