[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Run checksyscalls for N32 and O32 ABI

To: "Sam Ravnborg" <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: Run checksyscalls for N32 and O32 ABI
From: "Franck Bui-Huu" <>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 09:27:32 +0200
Cc: "Atsushi Nemoto" <>,,
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=VmQjC06s3H8EtLsiex1Lu3rPeH+zJfx0mhCYfC1p+TqlVTjSXWDD1sHin8/e+5rCnb0XY9dTGvkchTw0XlWgifYV/AjmufaW+poF6DpwST+53UjtdYulrW1boiaIz3OAGR+IK7lTxJ+boo99Ia+p7himldcpyNgtTg6OGA9x5sA=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=ks7MNno5C5hpQ0fIFiPFhGU6EwCEN7w+G2G8mgpvryKRkMNwMzlsVV9CQTKZNC+csJgr86BCBgiGCiukIpoB1DOFynf3B9qT6tkXLVSZcffW5YvyOBuD1fsZNNBXJxS30W7kTqXgQy72n+y1mEf9vNGPneYN4RYOP9idOZg/KK4=
In-reply-to: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <> <>
On 5/12/07, Sam Ravnborg <> wrote:
On Sun, May 13, 2007 at 01:47:13AM +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH] MIPS: Simplify missing-syscalls for N32 and O32

This is overengineered. The only reason to make the syscall check
for each and every build was that this was easy and the missing syscalls
are easy to spot during a normal build.

Well perhaps we shouldn't check for missing syscalls for a normal
build. After all, it's going to be used by arch maintainers or kernel
developpers once in a while (maybe every releases). So why not make it
optional ?

       $ make CHECK_SYSCALL=1


       $ make check-syscalls

But checking all combinations is just not worth it.
The arch responsible are assumed to build for the different architectures
once in a while so a missing syscall are likely to be detected anyway.

We cannot run each and every consistency check in all combinations
for each build - that would end in only build noise.

That's not exactly the case, see Atsushi's reply.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>