From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:51:24 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 09/24] ARM64:ILP32: Use the same syscall names as LP64.
In-Reply-To: <1400914939-9708-10-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com>
References: <1400914939-9708-1-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com>
<1400914939-9708-10-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com>
Message-ID: <20140618085124.GA11977@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:02:04AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> index 1caadc2..067eab0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> /*
> * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Ltd.
> + * Copyright (C) 2014 Cavium Inc.
> *
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> @@ -13,4 +14,10 @@
> * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> * along with this program. If not, see .
> */
> +
> +/* For ILP32 AARCH64, we want to use the non compat names. */
> +#if defined(__aarch64__) && defined(__ILP32__)
Another inconsistency for !__LP64__ vs __ILP32__. BTW, do we still need
__aarch64__ check? Do we expect these headers to be used with AArch32?
> +#define __SYSCALL_NONCOMPAT
As I mentioned in a previous patch, I prefer something like
__ARCH_WANT...
--
Catalin
From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path:
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
id S934200AbaFRIvm (ORCPT );
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 04:51:42 -0400
Received: from fw-tnat.austin.arm.com ([217.140.110.23]:20636 "EHLO
collaborate-mta1.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934104AbaFRIvi (ORCPT
);
Wed, 18 Jun 2014 04:51:38 -0400
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:51:24 +0100
From: Catalin Marinas
To: Andrew Pinski
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/24] ARM64:ILP32: Use the same syscall names as LP64.
Message-ID: <20140618085124.GA11977@arm.com>
References: <1400914939-9708-1-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com>
<1400914939-9708-10-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1400914939-9708-10-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.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 Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:02:04AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> index 1caadc2..067eab0 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
> /*
> * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Ltd.
> + * Copyright (C) 2014 Cavium Inc.
> *
> * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
> @@ -13,4 +14,10 @@
> * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> * along with this program. If not, see .
> */
> +
> +/* For ILP32 AARCH64, we want to use the non compat names. */
> +#if defined(__aarch64__) && defined(__ILP32__)
Another inconsistency for !__LP64__ vs __ILP32__. BTW, do we still need
__aarch64__ check? Do we expect these headers to be used with AArch32?
> +#define __SYSCALL_NONCOMPAT
As I mentioned in a previous patch, I prefer something like
__ARCH_WANT...
--
Catalin