Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:56:19 +0200 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@FreeBSD.org> To: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add stubs for Linux 2.6.17 syscalls Message-ID: <20080417075619.GA62998@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200804161839.52682.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <200804161256.56633.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <11167f520804161438q1f92000dsd57c5409350dedb9@mail.gmail.com> <200804161818.35543.jkim@FreeBSD.org> <200804161839.52682.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 06:39:48PM -0400, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Wednesday 16 April 2008 06:18 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > On Wednesday 16 April 2008 05:38 pm, Sam Fourman Jr. wrote: > > > would a patch like this make linux flash9 work? > > > > I wasn't able to make linux-flashplugin9 work with amd64 but I know > > set_robust_list syscall was used by linux_base-f8 + > > nspluginwrapper. Can anyone try it on i386 and let us know? > > BTW, functionally it does not change anything but it complains > unimplemeted syscalls are used, i.e., just making them visible. With > or without it, it should return ENOSYS. I wonder what would change if we used "vanilla glibc" instead of fedora's one.... can someone test flash9 with "normal glibc" ie, not one that with 2.6.16 kernel uses 2.6.37 syscalls ;) roman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080417075619.GA62998>