From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753283Ab1ICRS5 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:18:57 -0400 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:57927 "EHLO lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753179Ab1ICRS4 (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Sep 2011 13:18:56 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3-dev To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Arnd Bergmann , "H.J. Lu" , Linus Torvalds , Christoph Hellwig , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Richard Kuo , Mark Salter , Jonas Bonn , Tobias Klauser Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:40:55 PDT." <9b6a2b8e-365f-4155-85ca-5f72b46a7f3e@email.android.com> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <4E582577.2060805@zytor.com> <4E61BB42.4090301@zytor.com> <8179020.mG8hWW8BRr@wuerfel> <14427.1315058668@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <9b6a2b8e-365f-4155-85ca-5f72b46a7f3e@email.android.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1315070217_2927P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 13:16:57 -0400 Message-ID: <19229.1315070217@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 198.82.161.152 auth3.smtp.vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 2 pass X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=zidane.cc.vt.edu X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A020209.4E62610E.011A,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1315070217_2927P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 09:40:55 PDT, "H. Peter Anvin" said: > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote: > > >On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:41:16 +0200, Arnd Bergmann said: > > > >(Admittedly, I'm tuning in late on this discussion, but...) > > > >> For the ioctl interface however, the __u64/__s64 type in the x32 ABI > >> must be defined with __attribute__((packed,aligned(4))) to match what > >> the kernel implements because it emulates the x86-32 ABI. > > > >Is this a cast-in-stone issue, or is it still not too late to change that? > >And if we change that, can we simplify anything? > > The complexity of changing that would be enormous. Oh, I know changing the x86-32 ABI is impossible - I meant changing the decision to emulate that ABI (as opposed to emulating the x86-64 ABI, or a variant thereof, or something else). Or are we already commited to that route, even if we're still trying to figure out what syscalls to include? --==_Exmh_1315070217_2927P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFOYmEJcC3lWbTT17ARAizvAKDiw3bujQfGuLZ+02eNhK61DxNIcACgvm0K MVki6r1jB+tSgGrboBA73o4= =Ihbd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1315070217_2927P--