|| ||"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa-AT-zytor.com> |
|| ||Arnd Bergmann <arnd-AT-arndb.de> |
|| ||Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers |
|| ||Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:31:18 -0700|
|| ||Christoph Hellwig <hch-AT-infradead.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds-AT-linux-foundation.org>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools-AT-gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo-AT-elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx-AT-linutronix.de>|
|| ||Article, Thread
On 08/29/2011 08:04 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Right. The asm-generic/unistd.h interface doesn't provide them either
> for new architectures and expects libc to emulate them for any user
> application whose developers can't be bothered to fix their code.
> I think I've also commented in the past that I think x32 should use
> the same set of syscalls asm asm-generic, even if it's more convenient
> to use a different ordering.
It definitely is not convenient to use asm-generic for a whole lot of
reasons, which basically comes down to leveraging the existing x86-64
system calls plus leveraging the i386-on-x86-64 compat layer as much as
I talked to H.J. this morning and we're certainly dropping the 32-bit
filesystem calls. I'm going to audit which paths have both time_t
(including struct timespec/timeval) and pointers; that is hopefully a
matter of legwork. This will mean introducing new ioctls, but it's not
clear how many.
The end result is going to be bigger than the current patchset (which is
+2197 -510, and most of which is just the system call tables themselves;
the balance is only +690 -105), but it is definitely a *better* ABI.
to post comments)