[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44F525BC.4020608@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 22:44:28 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
jdike@...toit.com, B.Steinbrink@....de, arjan@...radead.org,
chase.venters@...entec.com, akpm@...l.org,
rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/7] remove all remaining _syscallX macros
Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Monday 28 August 2006 16:05, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
>> The patch below should address both these issues, as long as the libc
>> has a working implementation of syscall(2).
>
> I would prefer the _syscall() macros to stay independent of the
> actual glibc version. Or what do you do otherwise on a system
> with old glibc? Upgrading glibc is normally a major PITA.
>
Why don't you just have a private version of the macros?
syscall(2) is, again, a horrible botch -- on architectures which
requires alignment for register pairs, the extra register buggers up the
alignment. One *can* work around it by making the syscall number 64
bits, but I think it's safe to say that no libc does that currently.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists