On 11/23/15, Michael Ellerman <m...@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 12:15 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote: > >> On 11/19/15, Rashmica Gupta <rashm...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > 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. > > cheers > > _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
