[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49726621.LPTnfQXYGz@wuerfel>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:46:26 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
<tuliom@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>,
Cosimo Cecchi <cosimo@...lessm.com>,
Dan Nicholson <nicholson@...lessm.com>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan <raji@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls
On Friday 11 September 2015 10:24:29 Heiko Carstens wrote:
>
> FWIW, the s390 approach (ignoring the "new" system calls) is only temporarily.
> I'll enable the seperate calls later when I have time to test everything,
> especially the glibc stuff.
Ok, thanks for clarifying.
> The same is true for the ipc system call. (any reason why the seperate system
> calls haven't been enabled on x86 now as well?)
Agreed, we should split that out on all architectures as well.
Almost the same set of architectures that have sys_socketcall also
have sys_ipc, and the reasons for changing are identical. I don't
think we have any other system calls that are handled like this
on some architectures but not on others. There are a couple of
system calls (e.g. futex) that are also multiplexers, but at
least they do it consistently.
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