From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chung-Lin Tang Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/28] nios2 Linux kernel port Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 14:26:30 +0800 Message-ID: <5358AE96.9010006@codesourcery.com> References: <1397824031-4892-1-git-send-email-lftan@altera.com> <5354AD36.5090809@zytor.com> <16597012.pEkDc99HDN@wuerfel> ,<5357FF8E.9010809@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:49574 "EHLO relay1.mentorg.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750860AbaDXG0g (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2014 02:26:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "Pinski, Andrew" Cc: Ley Foon Tan , Arnd Bergmann , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux-Arch , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-doc@vger.kernel.org" , "Catalin.Marinas@arm.com" , Andrew Pinski On 2014/4/24 =E4=B8=8A=E5=8D=88 02:15, Pinski, Andrew wrote: >=20 >> > On Apr 23, 2014, at 10:59 AM, "Chung-Lin Tang" wrote: >> >=20 >>> >> On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote: >>> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann w= rote: >>>>> >>>> On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin, >>>>>>> >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> >>>>>> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can y= ou confirm >>>>>>> >>>>>> that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in l= ink below. >>>>>>> >>>>>> I can submit the patches for 64-bit time changes >>>>>>> >>>>>> (include/asm-generic/posix_types.h and other archs) if e= veryone is >>>>>>> >>>>>> agreed on this. >>>>> >>>>=20 >>>>> >>>> Yes. >>> >> Okay, will doing that. >> >=20 >> > I believe that arm64 ILP32 will also be affected. What is the stat= us of >> > this configuration? Has the glibc/kernel ABI been finalized? > Not yet. I am still working out the signal handling part. But we alr= eady agreed on 64bit time_t, clock_t, and suseconds_t. And we agreed t= o a 64bit offset_t too.=20 >=20 > On a related note suseconds in the timespec in posix is defined to be= long. So it would nice if the kernel ignores the upper 32bits so we (g= libc developers) can fix this for new targets including x32 and arm64/i= lp32.=20 Hmm, but that means for purely 32-bit architectures like nios2, which unlike x86_64 or arm64, never has a 64-bit mode, suseconds_t as a 64-bi= t type in the kernel is simply wasted. Chung-Lin