From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Howells Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 16:16:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] [PATCH] Add key management syscalls to non-i386 archs Message-Id: <7779.1098288977@redhat.com> List-Id: References: <20041020154922.GV16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <3506.1098283455@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20041020154922.GV16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, discuss@x86-64.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@m17n.org, linux-390@vm.marist.edu, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org > Um, no. Should be ENTRY_COMP() if there's compat syscalls. Not all archs (of which PA-Risc is an example) seem to require the same fixups on the same syscalls. In some instances, the upper half of the register is implicitly zero on 32-bit syscall entry to a 64-bit kernel. In such cases, none of my syscalls require fixing up, assuming the pointers are automatically correct. > And those particular syscall numbers have already been assigned (blame Linus > for dropping the PA-RISC patch on the floor instead of including it in > 2.6.9). There's not a lot I can do about that, except wave a patch under Linus's nose and see who complains. Can you allocate three syscall numbers for me for parisc? David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:16:39 +0100 (BST) Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([IPv6:::ffff:66.187.233.31]:1154 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:16:34 +0100 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i9KGGRCL011435; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:16:27 -0400 Received: from warthog.cambridge.redhat.com (warthog.cambridge.redhat.com [172.16.18.73]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i9KGGJr30748; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 12:16:19 -0400 Received: from warthog.cambridge.redhat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by warthog.cambridge.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i9KGGIX0007785; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:16:18 +0100 Received: from redhat.com (dhowells@localhost) by warthog.cambridge.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) with ESMTP id i9KGGHqw007780; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:16:17 +0100 X-Authentication-Warning: warthog.cambridge.redhat.com: dhowells owned process doing -bs From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20041020154922.GV16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> References: <20041020154922.GV16153@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <3506.1098283455@redhat.com> To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: torvalds@osdl.org, akpm@osdl.org, discuss@x86-64.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@m17n.org, linux-390@vm.marist.edu, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc64-dev@ozlabs.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, parisc-linux@parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] [PATCH] Add key management syscalls to non-i386 archs User-Agent: EMH/1.14.1 SEMI/1.14.5 (Awara-Onsen) FLIM/1.14.5 (Demachiyanagi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i386-redhat-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 17:16:17 +0100 Message-ID: <7779.1098288977@redhat.com> Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 6125 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: dhowells@redhat.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips > Um, no. Should be ENTRY_COMP() if there's compat syscalls. Not all archs (of which PA-Risc is an example) seem to require the same fixups on the same syscalls. In some instances, the upper half of the register is implicitly zero on 32-bit syscall entry to a 64-bit kernel. In such cases, none of my syscalls require fixing up, assuming the pointers are automatically correct. > And those particular syscall numbers have already been assigned (blame Linus > for dropping the PA-RISC patch on the floor instead of including it in > 2.6.9). There's not a lot I can do about that, except wave a patch under Linus's nose and see who complains. Can you allocate three syscall numbers for me for parisc? David