[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181213121213.GA28833@ip-172-31-15-78>
Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 12:12:13 +0000
From: Kevin Easton <kevin@...rana.org>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@...il.com>
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 10:05:14AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> 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.
Sure, but the point is that most widely-used software has probably by
now come in to contact with systems where time_t is bigger than long.
- Kevin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists