[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151208044937.GK20997@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2015 04:49:37 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PSEUDOPATCH] rename is_compat_task
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:36:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> So are there any deep objections to doing this rename in a single, quick,
> pain-minimized fashion right at the end of the next merge window, when the amount
> of pending patches in various maintainer trees is at a cyclical minimum? We can
> also keep an is_compat_task() migratory define for one more cycle just in case.
Again, what about sparc? There we have both 64bit and 32bit syscalls possible
to issue from the same process *and* no indication which trap had been used;
how do you implement is_compat_syscall() there? There's a TIF_32BIT, which
is used by mmap() and friends, signal delivery, etc., but that's not a matter
of which syscall flavour had been issued. Said that, arch/sparc doesn't use
is_compat_task(); it's open-coded everywhere...
--
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