[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180717125104.GC25416@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 05:51:04 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, y2038@...ts.linaro.org, hch@...radead.org,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
libc-alpha@...rceware.org, albert.aribaud@...ev.fr,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, viro@...iv.linux.org.uk,
peterz@...radead.org, dvhart@...radead.org, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
linux@...inikbrodowski.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/17] asm-generic: Remove unneeded
__ARCH_WANT_SYS_LLSEEK macro
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 06:10:50PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The sys_llseek sytem call is needed on all 32-bit architectures and
> none of the 64-bit ones, so we can remove the __ARCH_WANT_SYS_LLSEEK guard
> and simplify the include/asm-generic/unistd.h header further.
>
> Since 32-bit tasks can run either natively or in compat mode on 64-bit
> architectures, we have to check for both !CONFIG_64BIT and CONFIG_COMPAT.
>
> There are a few 64-bit architectures that also reference sys_llseek
> in their 64-bit ABI (e.g. sparc), but I verified that those all
> select CONFIG_COMPAT, so the #if check is still correct here. It's
> a bit odd to include it in the syscall table though, as it's the
> same as sys_lseek() on 64-bit, but with strange calling conventions.
Looks good,
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists