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

From: Michael Ellerman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:22:06 +1100

On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 11:53 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:

> On 11/19/2015 11:34 AM, Rashmica Gupta 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.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Rashmica Gupta <[email-masked]>
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd.h b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd.h
> > index 6d8f8023ac27..05bf34296144 100644
> > --- a/arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd.h
> > +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/asm/unistd.h
> > @@ -12,10 +12,9 @@
> >  #include <uapi/asm/unistd.h>
> >  
> >  
> > -#define __NR_syscalls		378
> > +#define NR_syscalls		378
> 
> This does not apply any more because of Michael's recent mlock2() system
> call enablement commit. Please do rebase and resend.

That's fine, I can fix up trivial conflicts like that myself.

cheers