[Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Martin Wilck]

David's last patch assigns the system call number 1215 to "getunwind".
The XFS kernel patch for 2.4.5 vuses 1215-1217 for address control lists.
How should this conflict be resolved? For now, I have just made XFS use
1216-1218 instead.

Martin

-- 
Martin Wilck     <Martin.Wilck@fujitsu-siemens.com>
FSC EP PS DS1, Paderborn      Tel. +49 5251 8 15113

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Nathan Straz]

On Mon, Jul 23, 2001 at 03:53:06PM +0200, Martin Wilck wrote:
> David's last patch assigns the system call number 1215 to "getunwind".
> The XFS kernel patch for 2.4.5 vuses 1215-1217 for address control lists.
> How should this conflict be resolved? For now, I have just made XFS use
> 1216-1218 instead.

In the XFS CVS tree, the system calls have moved to the range 1260-1262.
We are in the process of getting some official numbers.

-- 
Nate Straz                                              nstraz@sgi.com
sgi, inc                                           http://www.sgi.com/
Linux Test Project                                  http://ltp.sf.net/

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Jes Sorensen]

>>>>> "Martin" = Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@fujitsu-siemens.com> writes:

Martin> David's last patch assigns the system call number 1215 to
Martin> "getunwind".  The XFS kernel patch for 2.4.5 vuses 1215-1217
Martin> for address control lists.  How should this conflict be
Martin> resolved? For now, I have just made XFS use 1216-1218 instead.

Please don't do this. If you want to use temporary numbers, bump them
out of range so we don't clash with them in the next kernel
release. I'd say pick something like 8000 for now.

Jes

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Keith Owens]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 15:53:06 +0200 (CEST), 
Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@fujitsu-siemens.com> wrote:
>David's last patch assigns the system call number 1215 to "getunwind".
>The XFS kernel patch for 2.4.5 vuses 1215-1217 for address control lists.
>How should this conflict be resolved? For now, I have just made XFS use
>1216-1218 instead.

The XFS syscalls for IA64 are now
        data8 sys_attrctl                       // 1260
        data8 sys_acl_get
        data8 sys_acl_set
with corresponding changes to include/asm-ia64/unistd.h.

I did some SGI internal patches for XFS+KDB against IA64 a few weeks
ago.  The problem is that IA64 is stuck on kernel 2.4.5 while XFS
development is up to 2.4.7.  There were changes to common kernel code
between 2.4.5 and 2.4.7 that affected fs handling so we cannot backport
the current XFS to the 2.4.5 IA64 kernel.  Instead I used a snapshot of
XFS as of 2.4.5, which means it is missing some bug fixes.  We would
really like a current IA64 kernel.

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Keith Owens]

On 23 Jul 2001 16:09:19 +0200, 
Jes Sorensen <jes@sunsite.dk> wrote:
>Please don't do this. If you want to use temporary numbers, bump them
>out of range so we don't clash with them in the next kernel
>release. I'd say pick something like 8000 for now.

The tables only go up to 1279 so I picked an arbitrary number in the
middle.

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:16:18 +1000, Keith Owens <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com> said:

  Keith> The problem is that IA64 is stuck on kernel 2.4.5 while XFS
  Keith> development is up to 2.4.7.

Don't worry, a 2.4.7 based patch is in the works (and, no, I won't
apologize for going on vacation...).

What bothers me is that you apparently did not even try to contact me
to get official numbers.  At least, I don't see any earlier message
from you in this regard.

	--david

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:16:18 +1000, Keith Owens <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com> said:

  Keith> The XFS syscalls for IA64 are now data8 sys_attrctl // 1260
  Keith> data8 sys_acl_get data8 sys_acl_set with corresponding
  Keith> changes to include/asm-ia64/unistd.h.

No they are not.  If you need system call numbers, send me mail and
I'll assign you the necessary numbers.

	--david

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Keith Owens]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 09:49:49 -0700, 
David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 00:16:18 +1000, Keith Owens <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com> said:
>
>  Keith> The problem is that IA64 is stuck on kernel 2.4.5 while XFS
>  Keith> development is up to 2.4.7.
>
>Don't worry, a 2.4.7 based patch is in the works (and, no, I won't
>apologize for going on vacation...).
>
>What bothers me is that you apparently did not even try to contact me
>to get official numbers.  At least, I don't see any earlier message
>from you in this regard.

There is no 'official' source for syscall numbers.  The lack of a
standard process for assigning new syscall numbers is one of the
annoying things about the kernel and glibc.  Everybody picks their own
on every arch, which almost guarantees conflicts.

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:16:44 +1000, Keith Owens <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com> said:

  Keith> There is no 'official' source for syscall numbers.

Yes, there is: you send me mail, I add the respective numbers to
unistd.h, and that's it.  Anyone who messes with that protocol is on
his/her own.

	--david

PS: Note that syscall numbers are arch specific, so if you're looking
    for a platform-independent process, you're looking for the wrong
    thing.

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Keith Owens]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:19:36 -0700, 
David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:16:44 +1000, Keith Owens <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com> said:
>
>  Keith> There is no 'official' source for syscall numbers.
>
>Yes, there is: you send me mail, I add the respective numbers to
>unistd.h, and that's it.  Anyone who messes with that protocol is on
>his/her own.

Do you take care of glibc as well?  That is where the problem tends to
occur.

In any case the XFS syscalls are for the SGI version of ACLs.  There
are other projects working on ACLs, until there is agreement about the
ACL syscall interface, the XFS numbers cannot be considered to be
permanent.  So yes, we are on our own for the moment.

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[David Mosberger]

>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:30:18 +1000, Keith Owens <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com> said:

  Keith> Do you take care of glibc as well?  That is where the problem
  Keith> tends to occur.

glibc is a *user* of the kernel's system call numbers, so I don't see
how this could create a problem.  Perhaps you're worried about the
name of the libc system call?

  Keith> In any case the XFS syscalls are for the SGI version of ACLs.
  Keith> There are other projects working on ACLs, until there is
  Keith> agreement about the ACL syscall interface, the XFS numbers
  Keith> cannot be considered to be permanent.  So yes, we are on our
  Keith> own for the moment.

Fine by me provided you make sure that the users of XFS understand
that.  It does sound though that it would be premature to recommend
widespread use of XFS at this time.

	--david

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Keith Owens]

On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:35:07 -0700, 
David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2001 10:30:18 +1000, Keith Owens <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com> said:
>  Keith> In any case the XFS syscalls are for the SGI version of ACLs.
>  Keith> There are other projects working on ACLs, until there is
>  Keith> agreement about the ACL syscall interface, the XFS numbers
>  Keith> cannot be considered to be permanent.  So yes, we are on our
>  Keith> own for the moment.
>
>Fine by me provided you make sure that the users of XFS understand
>that.  It does sound though that it would be premature to recommend
>widespread use of XFS at this time.

On the contrary.  ACLs are an add on to XFS, you can run XFS quite
happily without ACLs.

Re: [Linux-ia64] XFS / IA64 system call conflict

[Jes Sorensen]

>>>>> "Keith" = Keith Owens <kaos@melbourne.sgi.com> writes:

Keith> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:19:36 -0700, David Mosberger
Keith> <davidm@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>>  Yes, there is: you send me mail, I add the respective numbers to
>> unistd.h, and that's it.  Anyone who messes with that protocol is
>> on his/her own.

Keith> Do you take care of glibc as well?  That is where the problem
Keith> tends to occur.

There isn't really a thing as special syscall handling in glibc in
this regard. However if you want wrappers added to glibc, just mail me
and I will do it (for glibc/ia64).

Jes