[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0V+xboaGAF2nqrYtpjXXA7y0LcvCKi4ngLTus1D_XZBA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:33:25 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: y2038 Mailman List <y2038@...ts.linaro.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Matt Turner <mattst88@...il.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Michal Simek <monstr@...str.eu>,
Paul Burton <paul.burton@...s.com>,
Helge Deller <deller@....de>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@...il.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@...aro.org>,
alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 29/29] y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> > - Once we get to 512, we clash with the x32 numbers (unless
> > we remove x32 support first), and probably have to skip
> > a few more. I also considered using the 512..547 space
> > for 32-bit-only calls (which never clash with x32), but
> > that also seems to add a bit of complexity.
>
> I have a patch that I'll send soon to make x32 use its own table. As
> far as I'm concerned, 547 is *it*. 548 is just a normal number and is
> not special. But let's please not reuse 512..547 for other purposes
> on x86 variants -- that way lies even more confusion, IMO.
Fair enough, the space for those numbers is cheap enough here.
I take it you mean we also should not reuse that number space if
we were to decide to remove x32 soon, but you are not worried
about clashing with arch/alpha when everything else uses consistent
numbers?
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists