From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755932AbaAVPD6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:03:58 -0500 Received: from mail-ea0-f172.google.com ([209.85.215.172]:55869 "EHLO mail-ea0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755212AbaAVPDw (ORCPT ); Wed, 22 Jan 2014 10:03:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2014 15:10:49 +0000 From: Catalin Marinas To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "H.J. Lu" , LKML , linux-arch , Christoph Hellwig , Ralf Baechle , Will Deacon , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Update kernel uabi header files for x32 Message-ID: <20140122151049.GA18727@1n450.cable.virginmedia.net> References: <1388182464-28428-1-git-send-email-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <52DEA933.6080907@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <52DEA933.6080907@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 09:06:59AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 12/27/2013 02:14 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > > X32 uses the same kernel system call interface as x86-64 for many > > system calls. However, "long" is 64-bit for x86-64 and is 32-bit for > > x32. Where long or unsigned long are used in struct types for such > > system calls, they are wrong for x32. __kernel_[u]long_t is [unsigned] > > long for all ABIs other than x32. I am submitting 8 patches to replace > > long or unsigned long with __kernel_[u]long_t so that those struct types > > can be used with x32 system calls. > > > > H.J. Lu (8): > > Use __kernel_long_t in struct timex > > Use __kernel_long_t/__kernel_ulong_t in > > Use __kernel_ulong_t in uapi struct ipc64_perm > > Use __kernel_long_t in struct msgbuf > > Use __kernel_ulong_t in struct msqid64_ds > > Use __kernel_ulong_t in x86 struct semid64_ds > > Use __kernel_ulong_t in shmid64_ds/shminfo64/shm_info > > Use __kernel_long_t in struct mq_attr > > > > As Catalin indirectly pointed out, I had made a followup to the wrong > version of the patchset (because I commented to Christoph's feedback.) > This is threaded to the proper version (without unnecessary #if > __BITS_PER_LONG.) >>From an arm64 ILP32 perspective (though still work in progress), the patches look fine. We'll continue the trend with similar changes to generic semid64_ds. In case the series is not committed yet: Acked-by: Catalin Marinas