On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 10:40 +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 09:31:14AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 10:15 +0200, Rodolfo Giometti wrote:
> > > Do you think I should add these functions into my patch, even if I
> > > cannot test it, or it's enought providing just the
> > > compat_sys_time_pps_fetch() function? 
> > 
> > Probably best to put them in. That way, you make it easier for people to
> 
> Mmm... so I should provide new syscalls for _all_
> architectures... gulp! :)

It's nice if you can do so, but I wouldn't suggest that you _have_ to.
I have to admit that I rarely bother actually wiring new system calls up
on anything but PowerPC to start with.

The important thing is that you've _considered_ the other architectures,
and the 32/64 compatibility implications. As long as the API of your new
system call is sensible and takes that kind of thing into account, it
should be fine.

Had you considered changing the API so that you don't need the
compatibility wrapper at all? Could you take an integer number of µS or
ms instead of a struct timespec?

-- 
dwmw2

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/