[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFLxGvy2sMW1nyMpxGN7xHPdUea713g89MdE3EcUNHJDCvZ3jA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 10:05:14 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
To: kevin@...rana.org
Cc: glaubitz@...sik.fu-berlin.de, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:ABI/API" <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, fweimer@...hat.com,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>, dalias@...c.org,
x32@...ldd.debian.org, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support?
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 6:03 AM Kevin Easton <kevin@...rana.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 11:29:14AM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> ...
> > I can't say anything about the syscall interface. However, what I do know
> > is that the weird combination of a 32-bit userland with a 64-bit kernel
> > interface is sometimes causing issues. For example, application code usually
> > expects things like time_t to be 32-bit on a 32-bit system. However, this
> > isn't the case for x32 which is why code fails to build.
>
> OpenBSD and NetBSD both have 64-bit time_t on 32-bit systems and have
> had for four or five years at this point.
They can also do flag-day changes and break existing applications, Linux not.
--
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists