From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall() Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 13:41:54 -0700 Message-ID: <4B9E9B92.1040506@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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:51662 "EHLO mail.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932138Ab0COUpp (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:45:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1268685311.2335.38.camel@pasglop> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: David Miller , drepper@redhat.com, ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@teksavvy.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, munroesj@linux.vnet.ibm.com On 03/15/2010 01:35 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 12:41 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> I don't see why syscall() can't change the type for its first argument >> -- it seems to be exactly what symbol versioning is for. >> >> Doesn't change the fact that it is fundamentally broken, of course. > > No need to change the type of the first arg and go for symbol > versionning if you do something like I proposed earlier, there will be > no conflict between syscall() and __syscall() and both variants can > exist. > Basically symbol versioning done "by hand", actually using symbol versioning is better, IMNSHO. -hpa