On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 15:17, Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:

* Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 14:47, Ingo Molnar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

* Geert Uytterhoeven [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

But at least the primary, 'native' syscall table of every arch
could be kept rather fresh via generic enumeration.

So we can start all over at offset 501 (alpha just started using
500) with a unified, clean, and compressed list of syscalls? Or do
we have some more other-os-compat syscalls around in this range?

No, that would leave a big hole in the syscall table of most
architectures.

Sure, but we could (a) optimize for the case where the syscall number is
larger than 500 and/or (b) drop support for syscall numbers smaller than
501, depending on a config option.

Dunno why there is so much desire to complicate and break
well-working ABIs while we have a 14+ MLOC kernel with so much code
in it that is in dire need to be improved! :-)

Because we (think we) need less active brain cells to write emails that to code.
So when we're not "active" enough to hack, we tend to respond to long winding
getting off-topic email threads...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds