From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Apr 8 20:59:27 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A3E716A403; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:59:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davidt@yadt.co.uk) Received: from outcold.yadt.co.uk (outcold.yadt.co.uk [81.187.204.178]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39AC013C468; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 20:59:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davidt@yadt.co.uk) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by outcold.yadt.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5FDD1DD4AA; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:59:25 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at yadt.co.uk Received: from outcold.yadt.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (outcold.yadt.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EPcSMT-h1mo2; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:59:20 +0100 (BST) Received: by outcold.yadt.co.uk (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6C1E21DD4A7; Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:59:20 +0100 (BST) Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:59:20 +0100 From: David Taylor To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20070408205920.GA98399@outcold.yadt.co.uk> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org References: <20070408191012.GA95373@outcold.yadt.co.uk> <20070408194326.GA77190@rink.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070408194326.GA77190@rink.nu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCH] linux_statfs64() missing an argument?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 20:59:27 -0000 On Sun, 08 Apr 2007, Rink Springer wrote: > Hi David, > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 08:10:13PM +0100, David Taylor wrote: > > I'm currently recompiling my kernel to test this, but thought I'd see > > if anyone had any comments on the patch as is, since I've probably done > > something wrong, as I'm not too sure how the whole syscalls.master setup > > works. I have now tested this, and it compiles and works correctly (at least, statfs returns success, thus satisying autoconf, I'll find out shortly if df displays the right values). > Looks good to me. However, as you might have seen, some files are > flagged "Do not edit". I believe editing a syscalls.master file will > automatically invoke a rebuild of these files, and thus, they need not > be part of your patch. > > Have you tried whether the appropriate files are automatically > regenerated? I wasn't too sure whether to include the diffs for those files (which did automatically regenerate), but since they exist in CVS, I decided to keep them. -- David Taylor