[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <4DB85A4F020000780003E6F7@vpn.id2.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:02:55 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...ell.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: <mingo@...e.hu>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: re-use kernel/syscall_table_32.S in
ia32/ia32entry.S
>>> On 27.04.11 at 17:41, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 04/27/2011 08:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> This requires a little bit of renaming, and a (much shorter than the
>> original full table) set of #define-s for those table entries where
>> native and compat mode entries differ.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
>
> Hm... not 100% sure I think this is an improvement, partly because it
> creates "action at a distance" -- you now have to look in two separate
> places to find out what actually happens with a system call -- and
> because the i386 table is already a bit of an "odd man out". I would
> much rather like to see a setup where you have __SYSCALL() macros in
> unistd_64.h-style and perhaps augment it with a 3-operand __SYSCALL()
> macro for the case where compat and non-compat are different.
>
> What do you think?
Yes, that's certainly an alternative.
Jan
--
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