[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16597012.pEkDc99HDN@wuerfel>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 12:56:08 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Ley Foon Tan <lftan@...era.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
cltang@...esourcery.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] nios2 Linux kernel port
On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote:
> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin,
>
> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm
> that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below.
> I can submit the patches for 64-bit time changes
> (include/asm-generic/posix_types.h and other archs) if everyone is
> agreed on this.
Yes.
> Excerpt from https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/14/358 :
> "Obviously, we want to use 64-bit off_t, but this is achieved already
> through loff_t, which is used in all places in the asm-generic
> ABI anyway (the syscalls using off_t are stripped out). I don't
> think we want to have the other ones set to 64 bit on ARC or Meta,
> although I'm not 100% sure about ino_t and nlink_t. "
This is all still true. You should have no syscall using 'off_t',
only loff_t.
I still don't know whether we would want 32 or 64 bit ino_t and nlink_t
for new architectures. It seems it would gain very little, but have
a noticeable overhead.
Arnd
--
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