[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1711171138510.7700@nanos>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 11:40:48 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
cc: Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Chris Metcalf <cmetcalf@...lanox.com>, cohuck@...hat.com,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com, gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Jan Hoeppner <hoeppner@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...isc-linux.org>,
Julian Wiedmann <jwi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:RALINK MIPS ARCHITECTURE" <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, oprofile-list@...ts.sf.net,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
sebott@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Stefan Haberland <sth@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Ursula Braun <ubraun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] posix_clocks: Prepare syscalls for 64 bit time_t
conversion
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Nov 2017, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 9:58 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >>
> >> No, syscall that existing 32-bit user space enters would be handled by
> >> compat_sys_nanosleep() on both 32-bit and 64-bit kernels at that
> >> point. The idea here is to make the code path more uniform between
> >> 32-bit and 64-bit kernels.
> >
> > So on a 32bit system compat_sys_nanosleep() would be the legacy
> > sys_nanosleep() with the existing syscall number, but you don't want to
> > introduce a new sys_nanosleep64() for 32bit. That makes a lot of sense.
> >
> > So back to your original question whether to use #if (MAGIC logic) or a
> > separate config symbol. Please use the latter, these magic logic constructs
> > are harder to read and prone to get wrong at some point. Having the
> > decision logic in one place is always the right thing to do.
>
> How about this:
>
> config LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS
> def_bool 64BIT || !64BIT_TIME
> help
> This controls the compilation of the following system calls:
> time, stime,
> gettimeofday, settimeofday, adjtimex, nanosleep, alarm, getitimer,
> setitimer, select, utime, utimes, futimesat, and
> {old,new}{l,f,}stat{,64}.
> These all pass 32-bit time_t arguments on 32-bit architectures and
> are replaced by other interfaces (e.g. posix timers and clocks, statx).
> C libraries implementing 64-bit time_t in 32-bit architectures have to
> implement the handles by wrapping around the newer interfaces.
s/handles/handling/ ????
> New architectures should not explicitly disable this.
New architectures should never enable this, right?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists