[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 00:07:41 +0100
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>, pinskia@...il.com,
Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com, catalin.marinas@....com,
Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
agraf@...e.de, klimov.linux@...il.com,
Andrew Pinski <Andrew.Pinski@...iumnetworks.com>,
broonie@...nel.org, jan.dakinevich@...il.com,
Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>, ddaney.cavm@...il.com,
bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com, philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com,
andrey.konovalov@...aro.org,
christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 13/17] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
> On Wednesday 11 November 2015 18:54:00 Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com> writes:
>>
>> > +#define sys_clock_gettime compat_sys_clock_gettime
>> > +#define sys_clock_settime compat_sys_clock_settime
>>
>> You also need to redirect sys_clock_nanosleep.
>
> Note that based on my comment, that table would be turned around, and
> only the syscalls get overridden that do not have the normal
> compat mode behavior (mostly the ones that pass a 64-bit register).
Is it intented that _all_ off_t-like syscalls are implemented by the
64bit variants? Currently, this isn't fully implemented (lseek is
implemented by sys_llseek and mmap by an mmap2 wrapper).
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@...e.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."
--
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