From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2993460Ab2KOOhE (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:37:04 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:61019 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2993437Ab2KOOhB (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:37:01 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: "H.J. Lu" Subject: Re: new architectures, time_t __kernel_long_t Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:36:22 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/3.5.0; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Vineet.Gupta1@synopsys.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Hogan References: <201211141218.02105.arnd@arndb.de> <201211150914.22835.arnd@arndb.de> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201211151436.23088.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:OXB0rr7TdV45BlOfADa/KBvhP0SWWWMbIn6MCypJK3P W8+0FLiXDTKa+Z0PFdv9hm4AimvcvRLDAnZX0VFBUTdPIupvev 9EBh7fr1aIrGuxcOdKEMZSyhvwJ/ZhXr7Lbf16If5oHd9i8T6a 7SuvKdmfh3Wv8P2u8XdRAt/2QBcvZK64DWXtob+4c1bmU90C7f 6jGZqkDYnOdOeXjVr/QerWo3TAvXsrpG9iZEqjmiemdPvdq2mZ pc5QjtDdFDlf00Y8/nnoBZykQUbtwe03lMvRtfvj+MkmvPlb7H eoslLimGzBECgzeGX+Auf0yguB/8TokNKA77EJKDnA5z0QnkLs BLF3oE35pUcRU+O8VO10= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 15 November 2012, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Wednesday 14 November 2012, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > >> On 11/14/2012 04:18 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > Since we are in the review phase for two new architectures that we > >> > should be merging into the mainline kernel, I think we need to > >> > come up with a solution for making them use a proper 64-bit time_t. > >> > > >> > Right now, the only 32-bit user space interface we have to use 64-bit > >> > time_t is the x32 side of x86-64, and that works by overriding all > >> > "long" sized types to be 64 bit at the ABI level, which we don't > >> > want for pure 32 bit architectures. > >> > >> Sort of. Either way, the kernel headers aren't really x32-clean yet, so > >> we have an opportunity to do things more cleanly as we are implementing > >> this. > > > > Ah, I didn't know that. How does one build an x32 libc then? > > Glibc has been providing its own types for years. > Kernel provided types used to be wrong for ia32 > on x86-64. What about ioctls and other calls then that actually do rely on the kernel headers and use the __kernel_*_t types? Arnd