[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <16446627.b0Lo936ZJj@wuerfel>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 14:24:57 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Andreas Schwab <schwab@...e.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
On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:44:55 Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> writes:
>
> > What do you mean with 32-bit off_t?
>
> An ABI with 32-bit off_t, ie. all currently implemented 32-bit ABIs.
>
> > Do you mean that glibc emulates a 32-bit off_t on top of the 64-bit
> > __kernel_loff_t?
>
> Glibc is bridging the user-space ABI to the kernel ABI.
Ok, but why?
The kernel headers for all recent architectures (arc, c6x, h8300,
hexagon, metag, nios2, openrisc, tile and unicore32) deliberately
leave out the __kernel_off_t based system calls to simplify the
ABI in a way that we never have to support a 32-bit off_t
in user space.
Are there programs that require using a 32-bit off_t by default
on 32-bit architectures but not on 64-bit architectures?
Did the previous version of the ilp32 patch set also emulate
this the same way?
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