Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.
>>
>> If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
>> inform us about it during our next kernel build.
>>
>> If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)
>
> Maybe we should change scripts/checksyscalls.sh to check the x86_64
> list of syscalls, and not i386?
>
> It's been a long time since "all the world's an i386" --- these days,
> it's "all the world's an x86_64".  :-)

Let the kbuild people (and their employers) fight over it...

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 04/09/2014 09:40 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>> maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.
>>>
>>> If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
>>> inform us about it during our next kernel build.
>>>
>>> If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)
>>
>> Maybe we should change scripts/checksyscalls.sh to check the x86_64
>> list of syscalls, and not i386?
>>
>> It's been a long time since "all the world's an i386" --- these days,
>> it's "all the world's an x86_64".  :-)
> 
> Let the kbuild people (and their employers) fight over it...
> 

I'm missing context here, but as an x86 maintainer I have no intention
of allowing system calls that aren't x86-specific to be added to x86-64
only.

	-hpa

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Peter,

On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM, H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> On 04/09/2014 09:40 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:25:30PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>>>>> maintainers would have no idea that a new syscall has been added.
>>>>
>>>> If i386 has the new syscall, scripts/checksyscalls.sh will catch it and
>>>> inform us about it during our next kernel build.
>>>>
>>>> If you add it to x86_64 only, bad luck for anyone else ;-)
>>>
>>> Maybe we should change scripts/checksyscalls.sh to check the x86_64
>>> list of syscalls, and not i386?
>>>
>>> It's been a long time since "all the world's an i386" --- these days,
>>> it's "all the world's an x86_64".  :-)
>>
>> Let the kbuild people (and their employers) fight over it...
>>
>
> I'm missing context here, but as an x86 maintainer I have no intention
> of allowing system calls that aren't x86-specific to be added to x86-64
> only.

commit 520c8b16505236fc82daa352e6c5e73cd9870cff
Author: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
Date:   Tue Apr 1 17:08:42 2014 +0200

    vfs: add renameat2 syscall

It was added to arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl only.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[Theodore Ts'o]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:48:32PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> >
> > I'm missing context here, but as an x86 maintainer I have no intention
> > of allowing system calls that aren't x86-specific to be added to x86-64
> > only.
> 
> commit 520c8b16505236fc82daa352e6c5e73cd9870cff
> Author: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
> Date:   Tue Apr 1 17:08:42 2014 +0200
> 
>     vfs: add renameat2 syscall
> 
> It was added to arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl only.

To be fair, part of the problem is that we don't have good
documentation about best practices in what people should do if adding
new system calls.  (i.e., creating a man page and pulling in Michael
Kerrisk, adding tests, wiring up both x86_64 and i386, sending mail to
linux-arch, the scripts/checksyscalls.sh script, etc.)

I'll confess to being ignorant about the checksyscalls.sh script, and
while I had known about the existence of the linux-arch list, I had
forgotten about it, so if I had tried to add a new system call, it's
likely I would have missed at one or more of these steps.

       	       	    	      	     - Ted




> 
> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
> 
>                         Geert
> 
> --
> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
> 
> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
>                                 -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [GIT PULL] ext4 changes for 3.15

[H. Peter Anvin]

It is quite frankly ridiculous how much work it takes to wire up a new system call.  It should be possible to do it across architectures without all this crap.

On April 9, 2014 11:23:24 AM PDT, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 09, 2014 at 07:48:32PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm missing context here, but as an x86 maintainer I have no
>intention
>> > of allowing system calls that aren't x86-specific to be added to
>x86-64
>> > only.
>> 
>> commit 520c8b16505236fc82daa352e6c5e73cd9870cff
>> Author: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@suse.cz>
>> Date:   Tue Apr 1 17:08:42 2014 +0200
>> 
>>     vfs: add renameat2 syscall
>> 
>> It was added to arch/x86/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl only.
>
>To be fair, part of the problem is that we don't have good
>documentation about best practices in what people should do if adding
>new system calls.  (i.e., creating a man page and pulling in Michael
>Kerrisk, adding tests, wiring up both x86_64 and i386, sending mail to
>linux-arch, the scripts/checksyscalls.sh script, etc.)
>
>I'll confess to being ignorant about the checksyscalls.sh script, and
>while I had known about the existence of the linux-arch list, I had
>forgotten about it, so if I had tried to add a new system call, it's
>likely I would have missed at one or more of these steps.
>
>       	       	    	      	     - Ted
>
>
>
>
>> 
>> Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
>> 
>>                         Geert
>> 
>> --
>> Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 --
>geert@linux-m68k.org
>> 
>> In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a
>hacker. But
>> when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something
>like that.
>>                                 -- Linus Torvalds

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone.  Please pardon brevity and lack of formatting.