[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180609074327.GA32578@yury-thinkpad>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 10:43:28 +0300
From: Yury Norov <ynorov@...iumnetworks.com>
To: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@....com, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, szabolcs.nagy@....com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, philipp.tomsich@...obroma-systems.com,
joseph@...esourcery.com, sellcey@...iumnetworks.com,
Prasun.Kapoor@...iumnetworks.com, schwab@...e.de, agraf@...e.de,
bamv2005@...il.com, geert@...ux-m68k.org, Dave.Martin@....com,
kilobyte@...band.pl, manuel.montezelo@...il.com,
james.hogan@...tec.com, cmetcalf@...lanox.com, pinskia@...il.com,
linyongting@...wei.com, klimov.linux@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org,
maxim.kuvyrkov@...aro.org, fweimer@...hat.com,
Nathan_Lynch@...tor.com, james.morse@....com,
ramana.gcc@...glemail.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
davem@...emloft.net, christoph.muellner@...obroma-systems.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/24] 32-bit userspace ABI: introduce ARCH_32BIT_OFF_T
config option
On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 03:33:51PM -0700, Palmer Dabbelt wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 10:32:07 PDT (-0700), catalin.marinas@....com wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:18:49AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig
> > > index 76c0b54443b1..ee079244dc3c 100644
> > > --- a/arch/Kconfig
> > > +++ b/arch/Kconfig
> > > @@ -264,6 +264,21 @@ config ARCH_THREAD_STACK_ALLOCATOR
> > > config ARCH_WANTS_DYNAMIC_TASK_STRUCT
> > > bool
> > >
> > > +config ARCH_32BIT_OFF_T
> > > + bool
> > > + depends on !64BIT
> > > + help
> > > + All new 32-bit architectures should have 64-bit off_t type on
> > > + userspace side which corresponds to the loff_t kernel type. This
> > > + is the requirement for modern ABIs. Some existing architectures
> > > + already have 32-bit off_t. This option is enabled for all such
> > > + architectures explicitly. Namely: arc, arm, blackfin, cris, frv,
> > > + h8300, hexagon, m32r, m68k, metag, microblaze, mips32, mn10300,
> > > + nios2, openrisc, parisc32, powerpc32, score, sh, sparc, tile32,
> > > + unicore32, x86_32 and xtensa. This is the complete list. Any
> > > + new 32-bit architecture should declare 64-bit off_t type on user
> > > + side and so should not enable this option.
> >
> > Do you know if this is the case for riscv and nds32, merged in the
> > meantime? If not, I suggest you drop this patch altogether and just
> > define force_o_largefile() for arm64/ilp32 as we don't seem to stick to
> > "all new 32-bit architectures should have 64-bit off_t".
>
> We (RISC-V) don't have support for rv32i in glibc yet, so there really isn't
> a fixed ABI there yet. From my understanding the rv32i port as it currently
> stands has a 32-bit off_t (via __kernel_off_t being defined as long), so
> this change would technically be a kernel ABI break.
>
> Since we don't have rv32i glibc yet I'm not fundamentally opposed to an ABI
> break. Is there a concrete advantage to this?
One obvious advantage is manipulating large files - if file is greater than
2G, you cannot easily mmap(), lseek() etc with 32-bit offset.
Another point is unification of layuots for structures like struct
stat between 32- and 64-bit worlds.
On glibc side it helps to unify 32-bit and 64-bit versions of syscalls.
Refer, for example this commit:
3c7f1f59cd161 (Consolidate lseek/lseek64/llseek implementations).
Yury
Powered by blists - more mailing lists