On 11/23/15, Michael Ellerman [off-list ref] wrote:

On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 12:15 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:

quoted

On 11/19/15, Rashmica Gupta [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

Most architectures use NR_syscalls as the #define for the number of
syscalls.

We use __NR_syscalls, and then define NR_syscalls as __NR_syscalls.

__NR_syscalls is not used outside arch code, whereas NR_syscalls is. So
as
NR_syscalls must be defined and __NR_syscalls does not, replace
__NR_syscalls with NR_syscalls.

Hi,

But what's wrong with the current code? Why do we need such change?

The change log explains it fairly well I think. Which part is not clear?

Ok, first I wasn't aware that NR_syscalls has external users such as
tracing. Agreed, it's better to have only one definition in this case.

cheers