[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091028031904.GA7744@basil.fritz.box>
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:19:04 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Dave Airlie <airlied@...il.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
DRI Development Mailing List
<dri-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: is avoiding compat ioctls possible?
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:05:08PM +1000, Dave Airlie wrote:
> We've designed that into a/c also, we pad all 64-bit values to 64-bit
> alignment on all the
> ioctls we've added to the drm in the past couple of years. Just because of
> this particular insanity.
That's actually not needed, just use compat_*64.
>
> Assume no mistakes are made, new ioctls designed from scratch
That seems like a bad assumption. It sounds like you already
made some.
> and reviewed to do 32/64-bit properly. The s390 was something I didn't
> know about but KMS on s390 is probably never going to be something
> that sees the light of day.
Well in theory there might be more architectures in the future
which rely on compat_ptr
>
> I'm just amazed that compat_ioctl should be required for all new code.
>
> DrNick on irc suggested just doing:
> if (is_compat_task()) ptr &= 0x00000000FFFFFFFF;
Such hacks often have problems on BE.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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