Re: `new' syscalls for m68k

2004-09-16 Thread Herbert Poetzl
On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 10:23:08AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > I'm updating the syscall table for m68k... > > > > Below is a patch that adds all syscalls that m68k is currently lacking > > (compared to ia32). However, I'm wondering whether w

Re: `new' syscalls for m68k

2004-09-13 Thread Herbert Poetzl
On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 01:17:10PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Herbert Poetzl wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 10:48:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Gwe, 2004-09-10 at 21:57, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > - What about sys_vserv

Re: `new' syscalls for m68k

2004-09-12 Thread 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 imp