[PATCH] powerpc: Standardise on NR_syscalls rather than __NR_syscalls.

Denis Kirjanov kda at linux-powerpc.org
Mon Nov 23 20:28:22 AEDT 2015


On 11/23/15, Michael Ellerman <mpe at ellerman.id.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 12:15 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
>
>> On 11/19/15, Rashmica Gupta <rashmicy at 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
>
>


More information about the Linuxppc-dev mailing list