From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:46:26 +0200 Message-ID: <49726621.LPTnfQXYGz@wuerfel> References: <3193269.4TGcgnGPrm@wuerfel> <20150911082429.GA12452@osiris> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20150911082429.GA12452@osiris> To: Heiko Carstens Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Geert Uytterhoeven , Andy Lutomirski , X86 ML , Network Development , Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho , Andy Lutomirski , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alexander Larsson , Cosimo Cecchi , Dan Nicholson , libc-alpha , Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan , Linux-Arch List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Friday 11 September 2015 10:24:29 Heiko Carstens wrote: > > FWIW, the s390 approach (ignoring the "new" system calls) is only temporarily. > I'll enable the seperate calls later when I have time to test everything, > especially the glibc stuff. Ok, thanks for clarifying. > The same is true for the ipc system call. (any reason why the seperate system > calls haven't been enabled on x86 now as well?) Agreed, we should split that out on all architectures as well. Almost the same set of architectures that have sys_socketcall also have sys_ipc, and the reasons for changing are identical. I don't think we have any other system calls that are handled like this on some architectures but not on others. There are a couple of system calls (e.g. futex) that are also multiplexers, but at least they do it consistently. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:56872 "EHLO mout.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751955AbbIKIry (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 04:47:54 -0400 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:46:26 +0200 Message-ID: <49726621.LPTnfQXYGz@wuerfel> In-Reply-To: <20150911082429.GA12452@osiris> References: <3193269.4TGcgnGPrm@wuerfel> <20150911082429.GA12452@osiris> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Heiko Carstens Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Geert Uytterhoeven , Andy Lutomirski , X86 ML , Network Development , Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho , Andy Lutomirski , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Alexander Larsson , Cosimo Cecchi , Dan Nicholson , libc-alpha , Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan , Linux-Arch Message-ID: <20150911084626.vzM9j_XUoTFCYsSOScvDR-fbEq9WDEACG_LOF4blGPw@z> On Friday 11 September 2015 10:24:29 Heiko Carstens wrote: > > FWIW, the s390 approach (ignoring the "new" system calls) is only temporarily. > I'll enable the seperate calls later when I have time to test everything, > especially the glibc stuff. Ok, thanks for clarifying. > The same is true for the ipc system call. (any reason why the seperate system > calls haven't been enabled on x86 now as well?) Agreed, we should split that out on all architectures as well. Almost the same set of architectures that have sys_socketcall also have sys_ipc, and the reasons for changing are identical. I don't think we have any other system calls that are handled like this on some architectures but not on others. There are a couple of system calls (e.g. futex) that are also multiplexers, but at least they do it consistently. Arnd