[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180322001532.GA18399@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:15:32 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
James Hogan <jhogan@...nel.org>,
linux-mips <linux-mips@...ux-mips.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] mm: provide generic compat_sys_readahead()
implementation
On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:23:42PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> Benefits:
> * all SyS... wrappers (i.e. the thing that really ought to
> go into syscall tables) have the same type.
> * we could have SYSCALL_DEFINE produce a trivial compat
> wrapper, have explicit COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE discard that thing
> and populate the compat syscall table *entirely* with compat_SyS_...,
> letting the linker sort it out. That way we don't need to keep
> track of what can use native and what needs compat in each compat
> table on biarch.
> * s390 compat wrappers would disappear with that approach.
> * we could even stop generating sys_... aliases - if
> syscall table is generated by slapping SyS_... or compat_SyS_...
> on the name given there, we don't need to _have_ those sys_...
> things at all. All SyS_... would have the same type, so the pile
> in syscalls.h would not be needed - we could generate the externs
> at the same time we generate the syscall table.
>
> And yes, it's a high-squick approach. I know and I'm not saying
> it's a good idea. OTOH, to quote the motto of philosophers and
> shell game operators, "there's something in it"...
FWIW, I have something that is almost reasonable on preprocessor side;
however, that has uncovered the following fun:
void f(unsigned long long);
void g(unsigned a, unsigned b)
{
f((((unsigned long long)b)<<32)|a);
}
which does compile to "jump to f" on i386, ends up with the following
joy on arm:
mov r3, r1
mov r2, #0
push {r4, lr}
orr r2, r2, r0
mov r0, r2
mov r1, r3
bl f
pop {r4, lr}
bx lr
with gcc6; gcc7 is saner - there we have just
mov r2, #0
orr r0, r2, r0
b f
The former is
r3 = r1
r2 = 0
r2 |= r0
r0 = r2
r1 = r3
The latter -
r2 = 0
r0 |= r2
which is better, but still bloody odd
And I'm afraid to check what e.g. 4.4 will do with that testcase...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists