[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E5BDAF6.40000@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:31:18 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers
On 08/29/2011 08:04 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> Right. The asm-generic/unistd.h interface doesn't provide them either
> for new architectures and expects libc to emulate them for any user
> application whose developers can't be bothered to fix their code.
>
> I think I've also commented in the past that I think x32 should use
> the same set of syscalls asm asm-generic, even if it's more convenient
> to use a different ordering.
>
It definitely is not convenient to use asm-generic for a whole lot of
reasons, which basically comes down to leveraging the existing x86-64
system calls plus leveraging the i386-on-x86-64 compat layer as much as
possible.
I talked to H.J. this morning and we're certainly dropping the 32-bit
filesystem calls. I'm going to audit which paths have both time_t
(including struct timespec/timeval) and pointers; that is hopefully a
matter of legwork. This will mean introducing new ioctls, but it's not
clear how many.
The end result is going to be bigger than the current patchset (which is
+2197 -510, and most of which is just the system call tables themselves;
the balance is only +690 -105), but it is definitely a *better* ABI.
-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