From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pippin.tausq.org (gandalf.tausq.org [64.81.244.94]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E010484E for ; Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:09:12 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:12:52 -0800 From: Randolph Chung To: Thomas Bogendoerfer Cc: parisc-linux@lists.parisc-linux.org Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] what's up with the ipc syscalls? Message-ID: <20031102181252.GY28967@tausq.org> Reply-To: Randolph Chung References: <20031101082451.GJ28967@tausq.org> <20031102180150.GA14554@solo.franken.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20031102180150.GA14554@solo.franken.de> Sender: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org Errors-To: parisc-linux-admin@lists.parisc-linux.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: > if this makes a difference, something in ipc/util.c is missing. When I > added the code above, I also made the ipc_parse_version only return > IPC_64, because we never had IPC_OLD. Older glibc made the call with > IPC_64 set, so we needed the wrapper in sys_parisc.c. I just looked > at the 2.4 version of ipc/util.c and it's still ok ... Ah! that explains it.... that change was not brought forward to 2.6... i was wondering why my test worked on 2.4 and failed on 2.6.... anyway, if we are only supporting IPC_64, then why mask off the IPC64 bit in the wrapper? if the ipc/utils.c stuff isn't there, wouldn't it default to doing the right thing when IPC_64 is set? right now glibc *doesn't* call the syscall with IPC_64, but i'm about to make it do that again. thanks, randolph -- Randolph Chung Debian GNU/Linux Developer, hppa/ia64 ports http://www.tausq.org/