From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 14:12:28 +0200 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: RFC: is_compat_task Message-ID: <20050629121228.GH21575@bragg.suse.de> References: <20050628181453.387e0fac.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <20050628091704.GP4171@wotan.suse.de> <20050628111828.GL5200@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> <20050628.134736.45885284.davem@davemloft.net> <20050629164127.58e97376.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050629164127.58e97376.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> To: Stephen Rothwell Cc: "David S. Miller" , matthew@wil.cx, ak@suse.de, hch@lst.de, akpm@osdl.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 04:41:27PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:47:36 -0700 (PDT) "David S. Miller" wrote: > > > > Why don't we do the following to resolve this issue? > > Create a "is_compat_syscall()" macro, in compat syscall > > trap entry, the bit is set, and it is cleared otherwise. > > > > It nops out to always evaluate to "0" on non-compat platforms. > > How about the patch below which defines is_compat_syscall() for ppc64 (and > all the non-compat-requiring archs)? (Yes, the ppc64 syscall entry really > checks the thread flag.) The patch alos includes the fixes for the input > layer mess. > for the other 64 bit architectures. I think for the particular input case it would be still better to just define ->compat_write at the VFS level. This would require a new compat_sys_write() wrapper, but that would be straight forward. -Andi