From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall() Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:58:40 +1100 Message-ID: <1268866720.2335.204.camel@pasglop> References: <20100315134449.GB1653@linux-mips.org> <4B9E4EB1.9010800@zytor.com> <4B9E59B7.6060405@redhat.com> <20100315.120004.209998642.davem@davemloft.net> <4B9E8D67.8040209@zytor.com> <1268685311.2335.38.camel@pasglop> <1268776570.19726.98.camel@spokane1.rchland.ibm.com> <1268785874.2335.137.camel@pasglop> <4BA06E1B.2040706@redhat.com> <1268816179.2335.187.camel@pasglop> <4BA11FD2.2090104@zytor.com> <1268858134.2335.198.camel@pasglop> <4BA1412C.6070008@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BA1412C.6070008@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ulrich Drepper , munroesj@us.ibm.com, David Miller , ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@teksavvy.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 13:53 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Yeah, whatever, I don't mind what technique you use for the > versionning, > > ultimately, if the approach works, we can look at those details :-) > We > > -do- need the macro to strip the dummy argument though, unless we > use > > a slightly different technique which is to make the __sysno argument > > itself 64-bit, which works as well I believe. > > > > It seems cleaner to do it that way (with a 64-bit sysno arg.) Right. Now if we can get Ulrich to actually put 2 and 2 together and admit that it actually works without breaking anything existing (at least for my arch but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case for others), I would be even happier :-) Steve, any chance you can cook up a glibc patch to test with ? Maybe making it powerpc specific for now ? Cheers, Ben. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:33986 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754756Ab0CQXA2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:00:28 -0400 Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall() From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt In-Reply-To: <4BA1412C.6070008@zytor.com> References: <20100315134449.GB1653@linux-mips.org> <4B9E4EB1.9010800@zytor.com> <4B9E59B7.6060405@redhat.com> <20100315.120004.209998642.davem@davemloft.net> <4B9E8D67.8040209@zytor.com> <1268685311.2335.38.camel@pasglop> <1268776570.19726.98.camel@spokane1.rchland.ibm.com> <1268785874.2335.137.camel@pasglop> <4BA06E1B.2040706@redhat.com> <1268816179.2335.187.camel@pasglop> <4BA11FD2.2090104@zytor.com> <1268858134.2335.198.camel@pasglop> <4BA1412C.6070008@zytor.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:58:40 +1100 Message-ID: <1268866720.2335.204.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ulrich Drepper , munroesj@us.ibm.com, David Miller , ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@teksavvy.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org Message-ID: <20100317225840.rovk69xAN7lefz0yUUtDYshvJBk6WdqKtBSlLJEgxaI@z> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 13:53 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > Yeah, whatever, I don't mind what technique you use for the > versionning, > > ultimately, if the approach works, we can look at those details :-) > We > > -do- need the macro to strip the dummy argument though, unless we > use > > a slightly different technique which is to make the __sysno argument > > itself 64-bit, which works as well I believe. > > > > It seems cleaner to do it that way (with a 64-bit sysno arg.) Right. Now if we can get Ulrich to actually put 2 and 2 together and admit that it actually works without breaking anything existing (at least for my arch but I wouldn't be surprised if that was the case for others), I would be even happier :-) Steve, any chance you can cook up a glibc patch to test with ? Maybe making it powerpc specific for now ? Cheers, Ben.