[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3463212.HtU7UeIULQ@wuerfel>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 22:49:43 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, 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, broonie@...nel.org,
jan.dakinevich@...il.com, joseph@...esourcery.com,
ddaney.cavm@...il.com, schwab@...e.de, bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com,
philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com, andrey.konovalov@...aro.org,
christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 14/19] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it
On Monday 30 November 2015 23:21:41 Yury Norov wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:34:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 November 2015 22:57:52 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 18 November 2015 00:16:54 Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > From: Andrew Pinski <apinski@...ium.com>
> > > >
> > > > Add a separate syscall-table for ILP32, which dispatches either to native
> > > > LP64 system call implementation or to compat-syscalls, as appropriate.
> > >
> > > I like it much better than the previous version, thanks for the rework!
> >
> > Hi Yuri,
> >
> > you must have missed my reply below. Are you still working on ilp32
> > or did you drop this thread because you got distracted with something
> > else?
> >
>
> I didn't miss it, and I continue with ILP32. I really appreciate your
> attention and time you spend on ILP32.
>
> There's a tricky bug with signal stack, that Andreas also discovered.
> It makes almost all tests that use posix threads crash. I want to fix
> it and other bugs before next submission.
>
> I also update glibc to follow all recommendations, and I want to
> upload it together with kernel patches.
Ok. As a reviewer, I find long waits between submissions a bit annoying
because that means I have already forgotten everything I commented on
the previous time.
Could we try to get consensus on how the syscall ABI should look
before you start adapting glibc to another intermediate version?
I think that would also save you duplicate work, as it's always
possible that we misunderstand each other in the review. Also,
when someone asks you questions during a review, please reply to
those questions so we can get a common understanding of the facts
and document that in the mail archives.
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