From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall() Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:33:24 +1100 Message-ID: <1268685204.2335.36.camel@pasglop> References: <1268628493.2355.2.camel@pasglop> <20100315150401.GF15133@shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:39934 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752268Ab0COUeU (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:34:20 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100315150401.GF15133@shareable.org> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jamie Lokier Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Mark Lord , Ulrich Drepper , Linus Torvalds , Steven Munroe On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 15:04 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > There are several problems with syscall(), not just this - because a > number of system calls in section 2 of the manual don't map directly > to kernel syscalls with the same function prototype. > > Even fork() has become something complicated in Glibc that doesn't use > the fork syscall :-( > > So anything using syscall() has to be careful on Linux already. > Changing the 64-bit alignment won't fix the other differences. It won't fix -all- the problems with syscall(), but it will fix a wagon of them without breaking existing code that already does the arch specific breakup on the call site... Cheers, Ben.