[PATCH 0/1] MR10774: ntdll: Make sure User Syscall Dispatch defines are always defined on Linux.
This makes sure it is available even if wine is built on a system with an older Linux kernel. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/10774
From: Sven Baars <sbaars@codeweavers.com> --- dlls/ntdll/unix/signal_x86_64.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) diff --git a/dlls/ntdll/unix/signal_x86_64.c b/dlls/ntdll/unix/signal_x86_64.c index 55e5a0abb7e..fde875f5cc9 100644 --- a/dlls/ntdll/unix/signal_x86_64.c +++ b/dlls/ntdll/unix/signal_x86_64.c @@ -164,6 +164,12 @@ __ASM_GLOBAL_FUNC( modify_ldt, "popq %rbx\n\t" "ret" ); +#ifndef PR_SET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH +#define PR_SET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH 59 +#define PR_SYS_DISPATCH_OFF 0 +#define PR_SYS_DISPATCH_ON 1 +#endif + #ifndef FP_XSTATE_MAGIC1 #define FP_XSTATE_MAGIC1 0x46505853 #endif -- GitLab https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/10774
In that case we should probably change the PR_SET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH define below. -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/10774#note_138230
On Thu Apr 30 05:27:18 2026 +0000, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
In that case we should probably change the PR_SET_SYSCALL_USER_DISPATCH define below. I'm not really sure what you mean? I don't see a define below?
- Do you mean moving the definition down? I tried to keep it near the top to make sure we don't get into a situation where we accidentally use it above the definition. - Do you mean removing the ifdefs, since it's now always defined? Then they'd have to be replaced by `ifdef __linux__` I suppose. I thought it's clearer to keep the existing ifdefs. Then one can see what's depending on these (and potentially revert this commit once kernel 5.11 is old). -- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/10774#note_138304
On Thu Apr 30 05:27:18 2026 +0000, Sven Baars wrote:
I'm not really sure what you mean? I don't see a define below? - Do you mean moving the definition down? I tried to keep it near the top to make sure we don't get into a situation where we accidentally use it above the definition. - Do you mean removing the ifdefs, since it's now always defined? Then they'd have to be replaced by `ifdef __linux__` I suppose. I thought it's clearer to keep the existing ifdefs. Then one can see what's depending on these (and potentially revert this commit once kernel 5.11 is old). Sorry I misspoke; I meant ifdefs. It seems mildly better to me to use #ifdef __linux__, but I'm not the maintainer here.
-- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/10774#note_138415
On Thu Apr 30 18:24:51 2026 +0000, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
Sorry I misspoke; I meant ifdefs. It seems mildly better to me to use #ifdef __linux__, but I'm not the maintainer here. I agree it looks a bit better, so I've changed this when merging it.
-- https://gitlab.winehq.org/wine/wine/-/merge_requests/10774#note_138451
participants (4)
-
Alexandre Julliard (＠julliard) -
Elizabeth Figura (＠zfigura)
-
Sven Baars
-
Sven Baars (＠sbaars)