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

[Michael Ellerman]

On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 12:28 +0300, Denis Kirjanov wrote:
> 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.

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