xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] libattr 2.4.32 arm eabi system call calling convention

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libattr 2.4.32 arm eabi system call calling convention
From: Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:38:42 +0100
Cc: agruen@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=1148133259; d=wantstofly.org; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; b=nDdJsXN9qs4fuWTOZUtx7Ypltqyui2H7X+k0yi1wh2aF4FXOf9VO4tnt8bvqH B8R9VRwcV3reeskX5aFfxa5SA==
In-reply-to: <20061130092853.GB1534@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20061130025459.GA23869@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061130092853.GB1534@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 09:28:53AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> > When building for EABI, a different system call calling convention is
> > used where system calls are numbered starting from zero, not 0x900000
> > as in the old ABI.  This was causing 'ls -al' with an ls binary that
> > was built with xattr support to SIGILL.
> 
> Please just rip out the direct syscalls.  The days glibc provices all
> the xattr syscalls in sys/xattr.h, and libattr should just forward to
> those.

Sounds like the better option to me as well.  (Would have saved me
a bunch of work, too.)


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