Arnd Bergmann firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2018 at 2:15 PM Firoz Khan email@example.com wrote:
On 14 September 2018 at 15:31, Arnd Bergmann firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 10:33 AM Firoz Khan email@example.com wrote:
arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/Makefile | 51 ++++ arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl | 378 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl | 372 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscallhdr.sh | 37 +++ arch/powerpc/kernel/syscalls/syscalltbl.sh | 38 +++
I think you should only need a single .tbl input file here.
Yes, we can do that way also.As I mentioned, it will add more complexity in the script.
The script has to be smart enough to parse the .tbl if we add more thing in the .tble file. It need more logic in the scripts. This is not common. So if you keep separate .tbl we can avoid this.
But all three existing architectures (x86, s390 and arm) already have the capability to parse the table and generate different output from that.
Yeah, we want that on powerpc too.
If the script needs to be more complex that's fine, if it can't be shared across arches that's fine, the main thing for me is that wiring up a syscall can be done by adding a single line in a single file.