From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 21:00:55 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle Subject: Re: [PATCH] consolidate shmat usage Message-ID: <20050405200055.GO16601@linux-mips.org> References: <20050323150123.1a78e9c4.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20050323174810.17df4440.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20050323145132.GJ21986@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050405180132.15e386cd.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20050405130312.GC16157@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050405130312.GC16157@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Stephen Rothwell , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Russell King List-ID: On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:03:12PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 06:01:32PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 14:51:32 +0000 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > I dislike the naming here. The manpage for shmat is the three-argument > > > version. The only reason we have the four-argument version is because > > > of the silly sys_ipc multiplexer. So I think sys_shmat() should be > > > the three-argument form and we should rename the existing sys_shmat() > > > to something like ipc_shmat(). Does it need to be asmlinkage? > > > > OK, I have changed sys_shmat to sys_shmat4 and sys_shmatcall to sys_shmat. > > There are some architectures that use each of these directly as system > > calls. > > Umm. I think you've just discovered a bug in ARM and MIPS. I don't see > any code in glibc for handling the 4-argument version of sys_shmat. > Russell, Ralf, could you comment? On MIPS it affects only 64-bit systems running native code which few people do. Fixing it as I'm writing this, Ralf