From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 29/29] y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:33:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0V+xboaGAF2nqrYtpjXXA7y0LcvCKi4ngLTus1D_XZBA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20190118161835.2259170-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20190118161835.2259170-30-arnd@arndb.de>
 <CALCETrXqM5mhvwreN5y-9K99h1j9rs9MAVK-cNLC54s1fdHA6w@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrXqM5mhvwreN5y-9K99h1j9rs9MAVK-cNLC54s1fdHA6w@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
Cc: y2038 Mailman List <y2038@lists.linaro.org>, Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, Matt Turner <mattst88@gmail.com>, Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>, Michal Simek <monstr@monstr.eu>, Paul Burton <paul.burton@mips.com>, Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>, David S. Mi
List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
> > - Once we get to 512, we clash with the x32 numbers (unless
> >   we remove x32 support first), and probably have to skip
> >   a few more. I also considered using the 512..547 space
> >   for 32-bit-only calls (which never clash with x32), but
> >   that also seems to add a bit of complexity.
>
> I have a patch that I'll send soon to make x32 use its own table.  As
> far as I'm concerned, 547 is *it*.  548 is just a normal number and is
> not special.  But let's please not reuse 512..547 for other purposes
> on x86 variants -- that way lies even more confusion, IMO.

Fair enough, the space for those numbers is cheap enough here.
I take it you mean we also should not reuse that number space if
we were to decide to remove x32 soon, but you are not worried
about clashing with arch/alpha when everything else uses consistent
numbers?

       Arnd