[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150914133500.GA385@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 15:35:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
<tuliom@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Larsson <alexl@...hat.com>,
Cosimo Cecchi <cosimo@...lessm.com>,
Dan Nicholson <nicholson@...lessm.com>,
libc-alpha <libc-alpha@...rceware.org>,
Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan <raji@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linux-Arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls
* Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > On Friday 11 September 2015 11:54:50 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >> To make sure I don't miss any (it seems I missed recvmmsg and sendmmsg for
> >> the socketcall case, sigh), this is the list of ipc syscalls to implement?
> >>
> >> sys_msgget
> >> sys_msgctl
> >> sys_msgrcv
> >> sys_msgsnd
> >> sys_semget
> >> sys_semctl
> >> sys_semtimedop
> >> sys_shmget
> >> sys_shmctl
> >> sys_shmat
> >> sys_shmdt
> >>
> >> sys_semop() seems to be unneeded because it can be implemented using
> >> sys_semtimedop()?
> >>
> >
> > Yes, that list looks right. IPC also includes a set of six sys_mq_*
> > call, but I believe that everyone already has those as they are not
> > covered by sys_ipc.
> >
> > For y2038 compatibility, we will likely add a new variant of
> > semtimedop that takes a 64-bit timespec. While the argument passed
> > there is a relative time that will never need to be longer than 68
> > years, we need to accommodate user space that defines timespec
> > in a sane way, and converting the argument in libc would be awkward.
> >
>
> I missed sys_ipc entirely.
>
> Ingo, Thomas, want to just wire those up, too? I can send a patch
> next week, but it'll be as trivial as the socket one.
Yeah, sure - split out system calls are so much better (and slightly faster) than
omnibus demuxers.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists