[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5122105.YDc1h2V3NP@wuerfel>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 19:41:28 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
pinskia@...il.com, Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com,
schwab@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, agraf@...e.de, klimov.linux@...il.com,
bamvor.zhangjian@...wei.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, joseph@...esourcery.com,
christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/25] arm64: ilp32: introduce binfmt_ilp32.c
On Friday 22 April 2016 17:51:30 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 06, 2016 at 01:08:40AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/binfmt_ilp32.c
>
> [...]
>
> > +#include "../../../fs/binfmt_elf.c"
>
> How different is this new binfmt_ilp32.c file from the first part of
> compat_binfmt_elf.c? I wonder whether we could include the latter here
> instead and make this similar to binfmt_elf32.c introduced by the
> previous patch.
That is how the earlier versions did it, and I thought it ended up
too ugly with lots of runtime checks instead of compile-time checks.
The current version is how I asked it to be done. A slight
variation would be to keep using fs/compat_binfmt_elf.c for one
of the two compat modes (today it is used for aarch32) and have
a separate file include "../../../fs/binfmt_elf.c" for the other
mode (as this patch does for ilp32). I think that is what I asked
for, but there was probably a good reason for having two files
in the same directory. The result is basically the same.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists