* [Q] Why is compat_uid_t a u16 value?
@ 2004-09-12 15:01 Carlos O'Donell
2004-09-12 19:55 ` Chris Wedgwood
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Carlos O'Donell @ 2004-09-12 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
ia64-ml,
The ia32 emulation code is using 'unsigned int' for uid_t returned back
to userspace. While the compat.h definitions uses compat_uid_t, which
is defined as u16. Is this correct? I would assume that compat_uid_t
should be u32 under ia64.
Is there any reason it is currently defined as u16?
Is the compat.h definition of compat_uid_t ever used anywhere?
I'm testing some patches to cleanup compat code, but I noticed some
discrepancies in the ia64 definitions of compat.h.
Cheers,
Carlos.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [Q] Why is compat_uid_t a u16 value?
2004-09-12 15:01 [Q] Why is compat_uid_t a u16 value? Carlos O'Donell
@ 2004-09-12 19:55 ` Chris Wedgwood
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Chris Wedgwood @ 2004-09-12 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ia64
On Sun, Sep 12, 2004 at 11:01:09AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> The ia32 emulation code is using 'unsigned int' for uid_t returned
> back to userspace. While the compat.h definitions uses compat_uid_t,
> which is defined as u16.
Some older parts of the x86 ABI use a 16-bit UID in places (sysv IPC
and stat probably, I didn't check).
> Is this correct? I would assume that compat_uid_t should be u32
> under ia64.
Then running applications using the old x86 ABI would break.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-12 19:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-09-12 15:01 [Q] Why is compat_uid_t a u16 value? Carlos O'Donell
2004-09-12 19:55 ` Chris Wedgwood
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox