[PATCH RFC] Support newer kernels lacking noat syscalls

Bernhard Reutner-Fischer rep.dot.nop at gmail.com
Tue Apr 24 15:48:51 UTC 2012

On 24 April 2012 17:35, Mark Salter <msalter at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 17:00 +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote:
>> On 24 April 2012 16:50, Mark Salter <msalter at redhat.com> wrote:
>> > Upstream Linux kernel development is requiring new architecture ports to
>> > use only the default set of generic syscalls. This means familiar syscalls
>> http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2011-September/045726.html
> Heh. I knew there had to be patch out there. I saw some other older ones
> for specific syscalls, but never saw yours in my searching.
> Looks pretty close to what I've been using but doesn't seem to have
> generated much interest. I missed the no_cancel bits, but I figured
> there would be such things broken in my patch too.
> So, is there any other concerns besides the cancellation? I saw some
> concern about bloat, but if the approach is to use the noat syscalls
> if they exist, it shouldn't bloat ports using older kernels.

Do you have size(1) measures for using the *at() versus noat?


More information about the uClibc mailing list