Hi Max,
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 05:19, Max Filippov jcmvbkbc@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Firoz,
I have one more question:
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 2:20 AM Firoz Khan firoz.khan@linaro.org wrote:
The 2nd option will be the recommended one. For that, I added the __NR_syscalls macro in uapi/asm/unistd.h along with __NR_syscall_count asm/unistd.h. The macro __NR_sys- calls also added for making the name convention same across all architecture. While __NR_syscalls isn't strictly part of the uapi, having it as part of the generated header to simplifies the implementation. We also need to enclose this macro with #ifdef __KERNEL__ to avoid side effects.
Looking at the include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h I see that __NR_syscalls is not guarded by the #ifdef __KERNEL__, why should it be guarded for xtensa?
__NR_syscalls for kernel. So this macro is present in asm/unistd.h rather than uapi/asm/unistd.h. As I mentioned in the patch, it would be better to keep in uapi/asm/unistd.h to count the number of syscalls. But this will create some side effect. So I was guarded with __KERNEL__. In order to come up with common implementation, I kept this for all architecture.
If we remove __NR_syscall_count from the uapi header I'd suggest dropping it completely and switching its two current users to __NR_syscalls.
I'm not removing the __NR_syscall_count macro; just place it in asm/unistd.h file for the above reason.
FYI, I made sure that the kernel will build with my patch. I would appreciate if you can perform the boot test on the actual platform.
Thanks Firoz
-- Thanks. -- Max