From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ulrich Drepper Subject: Re: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall() Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:52:27 -0700 Message-ID: <4BA06E1B.2040706@redhat.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> <1268776570.19726.98.camel@spokane1.rchland.ibm.com> <1268785874.2335.137.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12046 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752378Ab0CQFwx (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:52:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1268785874.2335.137.camel@pasglop> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: munroesj@us.ibm.com, "H. Peter Anvin" , David Miller , ralf@linux-mips.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel@teksavvy.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/16/2010 05:31 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > My proposal is purely a change to the syscall() > function, nothing else. No kernel change, no ABI change, no change to > the way glibc normally calls syscalls internally, etc... How can this be? People are today actively working around the problem of 64-bit arguments. You have to break something since you cannot recognize these situations. And since it became meanwhile clear that there is no way to "fix" all archs magically I really don't want to introduce anything. There are mechanisms in place to abstract out some of the issues. And for the rest, well, if you're using syscalls directly you already have to encoded lowlevel knowledge. One more bit doesn't hurt. It's not as if this happens every day. - --=20 =E2=9E=A7 Ulrich Drepper =E2=9E=A7 Red Hat, Inc. =E2=9E=A7 444 Castro S= t =E2=9E=A7 Mountain View, CA =E2=9D=96 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkugbhsACgkQ2ijCOnn/RHQzlACeMp0UK2jZuZOgXhJjB8Z9p4kh rCoAn0zaJqFYV9tQ0Ct49Mprfa0O5iKh =3D71la -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----