From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 16:34:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v6 13/17] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it In-Reply-To: References: <1446507046-24604-1-git-send-email-ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> <16446627.b0Lo936ZJj@wuerfel> Message-ID: <3810107.ZiMyX4Iloo@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 12 November 2015 14:47:18 Andreas Schwab wrote: > Arnd Bergmann writes: > > > On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:44:55 Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> Arnd Bergmann writes: > >> > >> > What do you mean with 32-bit off_t? > >> > >> An ABI with 32-bit off_t, ie. all currently implemented 32-bit ABIs. > >> > >> > Do you mean that glibc emulates a 32-bit off_t on top of the 64-bit > >> > __kernel_loff_t? > >> > >> Glibc is bridging the user-space ABI to the kernel ABI. > > > > Ok, but why? > > That's how the ABI is defined right now. I didn't make that up. Ok, I guess it will remain a mystery then. Should we perhaps define __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_OFF_T for the unistd.h file then, so we provide both the off_t and the loff_t based syscalls? That would avoid the extra wrapper in glibc when using a 32-bit off_t if that is the preferred mode for user space. Arnd