From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] Use __kernel_ulong_t in struct msqid64_ds Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:07:42 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1337292816-10839-1-git-send-email-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <1337292816-10839-9-git-send-email-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <4FB58EFD.7010302@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4FB58EFD.7010302@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "H.J. Lu" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > The sane thing would seem to be to change __BITS_PER_LONG to 32 on x32 > and fix the padding hacks in struct shmid64_ds; H.J., would you agree? Ugh. That looks like a disaster. The padding hacks that depend on __BITS_PER_LONG seem pretty damn broken anyway. They only work if the kernel agrees with the value (which is against the whole point of making __BITS_PER_LONG be about some user-level ABI thing) or for little-endian machines. IOW, all the __BITS_PER_LONG games look totally broken to me. I can't see how they could possibly even be fixed. Linus From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wg0-f44.google.com ([74.125.82.44]:57679 "EHLO mail-wg0-f44.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932585Ab2ERAIE (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 May 2012 20:08:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4FB58EFD.7010302@zytor.com> References: <1337292816-10839-1-git-send-email-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <1337292816-10839-9-git-send-email-hjl.tools@gmail.com> <4FB58EFD.7010302@zytor.com> From: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 17:07:42 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/10] Use __kernel_ulong_t in struct msqid64_ds Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: "H.J. Lu" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de Message-ID: <20120518000742.uZh4yG-7yFZqMwjobskfTrfqmoinund04CV0MY5r4NM@z> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > The sane thing would seem to be to change __BITS_PER_LONG to 32 on x32 > and fix the padding hacks in struct shmid64_ds; H.J., would you agree? Ugh. That looks like a disaster. The padding hacks that depend on __BITS_PER_LONG seem pretty damn broken anyway. They only work if the kernel agrees with the value (which is against the whole point of making __BITS_PER_LONG be about some user-level ABI thing) or for little-endian machines. IOW, all the __BITS_PER_LONG games look totally broken to me. I can't see how they could possibly even be fixed. Linus