From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King Subject: Re: [-next Nov 17] s390 build break(arch/s390/kernel/compat_wrapper.S) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:27:27 +0000 Message-ID: <20091118092727.GA17267@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20091117195309.6cc3ead0.sfr@canb.auug.org.au> <4B0291BB.3090005@in.ibm.com> <20091117125201.GB5124@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <1258465241.2876.29.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> <20091117135525.GF5124@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> <1258471436.2876.34.camel@dhcp231-106.rdu.redhat.com> <20091118070418.GA4392@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([78.32.30.218]:34181 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756953AbZKRJ2a (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Nov 2009 04:28:30 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091118070418.GA4392@osiris.boeblingen.de.ibm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: Eric Paris , Sachin Sant , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell , linux-next@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Martin Schwidefsky , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 08:04:18AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:23:56AM -0500, Eric Paris wrote: > With > > long sys_fanotify_mark(int fanotify_fd, unsigned int flags, > int fd, const char __user *pathname, > u64 mask); > > we have a 64 bit type as 5th argument. That doesn't work for syscalls > on 32 bit s390. Note that the above works on ARM, since we end up with the following register allocation: r0: fanotify_fd r1: flags r2: fd r3: pathname r4,r5: mask since 'mask' is an even,odd pair, and the arguments all fit within r0 - r5 inclusive. > Please note that other architectures (I think at least arm and powerpc) put > 64 bit values into even/odd register pairs and add padding if the first free > available register is an odd one. So any of the following interfaces should > work for all architectures: Indeed. Since we're going around the loop of re-organizing the argument order of syscalls, the question which needs asking is: what's happening with HPA's idea of having a set of per-arch rules and generating the interfaces according to those rules? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: