[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47FD6921.6090408@zytor.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:10:57 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: sukadev@...ibm.com
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, clg@...ibm.com, serue@...ibm.com,
"David C. Hansen" <haveblue@...ibm.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>,
Containers <containers@...ts.osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] clone64() and unshare64() system calls
sukadev@...ibm.com wrote:
>>
>> If you're going to make it a 64-bit pass it in as a 64-bit number, instead
>> of breaking it into two numbers.
>
> Maybe I am missing your point. The glibc interface could take a 64bit
> parameter, but don't we need to pass 32-bit values into the system call
> on 32 bit systems ?
Not as such, no. The ABI handles that. To make the ABI clean on some
architectures, it's good to consider a 64-bit value only in positions
where they map to an even:odd register pair once slotted in.
> Yes, this was discussed before in the context of Pavel Emelyanov's patch
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/16/109
>
> along with sys_indirect(). While there was no consensus, it looked like
> adding a new system call was better than open ended interfaces.
That's not really an open-ended interface, it's just an expandable bitmap.
-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