On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 12:28 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote: > 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.
Right, apart from tracing it would just be an arch internal detail. But since we must #define NR_syscalls for tracing it's cleaner to just have that. cheers _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
