On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 12:28 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:

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

quoted

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

quoted

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

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.

Right, apart from tracing it would just be an arch internal detail. But since
we must #define NR_syscalls for tracing it's cleaner to just have that.

cheers