Re: `new' syscalls for m68k

[Herbert Poetzl]

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 10:48:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Gwe, 2004-09-10 at 21:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >   - Are sys_sched_[gs]etaffinity() needed for non-SMP?
> Not really
> 
> >   - I disabled [sg]et_thread_area() since sys_[gs]et_thread_area() are
> >     missing. Do we have to implement them, or should we use some other
> >     method for Thread Local Storage?
> 
> Up to your implementation
> 
> >   - What about sys_vserver()?

I would be happy to add a syscall reservation 
to the list of already reserved syscalls for
i386, x86_64, s390, sparc/64, sh3/4, ppc/64
and mips * ...

> Vserver project - probably dead for 2.6 since the SELinux and other
> security modules can implement this same things (and a 2.6 vserver one
> assumes would do likewise)

sorry, SELinux and friends can and do not even
remotely implement the same functionality, and
linux-vserver for 2.6 is working fine ...

best,
Herbert
 
> >   - What about sys_kexec_load()?
> 
> Depends if you support kexec
> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/