[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1268866720.2335.204.camel@pasglop>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:58:40 +1100
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...hat.com>, munroesj@...ibm.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ralf@...ux-mips.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...savvy.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 13:53 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Yeah, whatever, I don't mind what technique you use for the
> versionning,
> > ultimately, if the approach works, we can look at those details :-)
> We
> > -do- need the macro to strip the dummy argument though, unless we
> use
> > a slightly different technique which is to make the __sysno argument
> > itself 64-bit, which works as well I believe.
> >
>
> It seems cleaner to do it that way (with a 64-bit sysno arg.)
Right. Now if we can get Ulrich to actually put 2 and 2 together and
admit that it actually works without breaking anything existing (at
least for my arch but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case for
others), I would be even happier :-)
Steve, any chance you can cook up a glibc patch to test with ? Maybe
making it powerpc specific for now ?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
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