From owner-freebsd-emulation  Wed Jul 30 16:25:25 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-emulation>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA12212
          for emulation-outgoing; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 16:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA12203
          for <emulation@FreeBSD.ORG>; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 16:25:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id QAA07729; Wed, 30 Jul 1997 16:24:45 -0700
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 1997 16:24:45 -0700
From: Sean Eric Fagan <sef@Kithrup.COM>
Message-Id: <199707302324.QAA07729@kithrup.com>
To: jlemon@americantv.com, stephen@farrell.org
Subject: Re: linux jdk (v1.1.1-v3 and v1.1.3-pre-v1) on 2.2-STABLE/2.2.2
Cc: emulation@FreeBSD.ORG
Sender: owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>This ktrace shows that syscalls are being made to mincore().  Now, I'm
>admittedly not familiar with the linux emulation code, but I don't think
>that mincore() is a linux syscall, at least it isn't listed in the linux
>syscalls.master file.  However, under BSD, the syscall number for mincore()
>is 78, while under linux, gettimeofday() == 78.
>
>gettimeofday() appears to be a more likely syscall than mincore().
>
>It almost appears that somehow this process has 'forgotten' that it is an
>emulated linux process, and is calling the native BSD routines directly.
>
>Would this make any sense?

ktrace only grabs the system call number, but doesn't know anything about
emulated systems; as a result, it can't do a translation from syscall number
to any name other than BSD.

This is something I'm thinking about, although not for ktrace.

Sean.