From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2014 09:51:24 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 09/24] ARM64:ILP32: Use the same syscall names as LP64. In-Reply-To: <1400914939-9708-10-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com> References: <1400914939-9708-1-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com> <1400914939-9708-10-git-send-email-apinski@cavium.com> Message-ID: <20140618085124.GA11977@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:02:04AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > index 1caadc2..067eab0 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@ > /* > * Copyright (C) 2012 ARM Ltd. > + * Copyright (C) 2014 Cavium Inc. > * > * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify > * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as > @@ -13,4 +14,10 @@ > * You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > * along with this program. If not, see . > */ > + > +/* For ILP32 AARCH64, we want to use the non compat names. */ > +#if defined(__aarch64__) && defined(__ILP32__) Another inconsistency for !__LP64__ vs __ILP32__. BTW, do we still need __aarch64__ check? Do we expect these headers to be used with AArch32? > +#define __SYSCALL_NONCOMPAT As I mentioned in a previous patch, I prefer something like __ARCH_WANT... -- Catalin