[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070211161446.GB11547@osiris.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:14:46 +0100
From: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
To: Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>
Cc: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>,
linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...nvz.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.21
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:34:47PM +0000, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 10:32:07AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2007-02-10 at 11:22 +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> > > Which remembers me that I think that MIPS is using the non-compat version
> > > of sys_epoll_pwait for compat syscalls. But maybe MIPS doesn't need a compat
> > > syscall for some reason. Dunno.
> >
> > It's OK as long as the 64-bit kernel, N32 and O32 userspace all agree
> > there there's 32 bits of padding between the fields of this structure:
> >
> > struct epoll_event {
> > __u32 events;
> > __u64 data;
> > };
> >
> > I suspect it's a fairly safe bet that N32 userspace agrees; if the O32
> > ABI is different then it would need the compat syscall.
>
> That is correct - and apparently for all ABIs because I wasn't able to find
> a compat_sys_epoll_pwait at all.
Hmm.. so you don't need to do some fancy compat conversion for the sigset_t
that gets passed? Why is that? I don't get it...
-
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