From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from baldric (baldric.uwo.ca [129.100.10.225]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E53F483E for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 16:01:05 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 17:56:27 -0500 From: Carlos O'Donell To: Thomas Bogendoerfer Cc: Randolph Chung , parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] what's up with the ipc syscalls? Message-ID: <20031102225626.GF26916@systemhalted> References: <20031101082451.GJ28967@tausq.org> <20031102180150.GA14554@solo.franken.de> <20031102181252.GY28967@tausq.org> <20031102214200.GA5299@solo.franken.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20031102214200.GA5299@solo.franken.de> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:42:00PM +0100, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:12:52AM -0800, Randolph Chung wrote: > > anyway, if we are only supporting IPC_64, then why mask off the IPC64 > > bit in the wrapper? if the ipc/utils.c stuff isn't there, wouldn't it > > default to doing the right thing when IPC_64 is set? > > look at the switch statements in msg.c/sem.c/shm.c. If you don't mask > off IPC_64, the cases don't match. > > > right now glibc *doesn't* call the syscall with IPC_64, but i'm about to > > make it do that again. > > I don't think this is a good idea, because by checking for IPC_64 we > could see, whether an old glibc is used and could convert structs > (see sys_parisc.c:sys_shmctl_broken()). There is no such thing as that "old glibc" we have always had __ASSUME_IPC64. What support are we looking to preserve? c.