On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 12:44:20PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
quoted text
> 
> 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.

Ok. :)

quoted text
> 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?

Not before now, but I followed the API specified into RFC 2783 who
specifies struct timespec...

Thanks for your suggestions! I'll send a new patch ASAP!

Rodolfo

-- 

GNU/Linux Solutions                  e-mail:    giometti@enneenne.com
Linux Device Driver                             giometti@gnudd.com
Embedded Systems                     		giometti@linux.it
UNIX programming                     phone:     +39 349 2432127
-
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/