From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Received: from ZenIV.linux.org.uk (zeniv.linux.org.uk [195.92.253.2])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4066dm4KQ8zF1vf
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 22 Mar 2018 11:15:56 +1100 (AEDT)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 00:15:32 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
 Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.net>,
 Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
 Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>, James Hogan <jhogan@kernel.org>,
 linux-mips <linux-mips@linux-mips.org>,
 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
 Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
 ppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
 Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
 Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>,
 linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
 "David S . Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
 sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
 Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.com>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 4/6] mm: provide generic compat_sys_readahead()
 implementation
Message-ID: <20180322001532.GA18399@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
References: <20180318161056.5377-1-linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
 <20180318161056.5377-5-linux@dominikbrodowski.net>
 <20180318174014.GR30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <CA+55aFwuZCpAZRpsTGiUmG065ZHHpj+03_NeWiy-OGkMGw7e3g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180318181848.GU30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180319042300.GW30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
 <20180319092920.tbh2xwkruegshzqe@gmail.com>
 <20180319232342.GX30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20180319232342.GX30522@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:23:42PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> Benefits:
> 	* all SyS... wrappers (i.e. the thing that really ought to
> go into syscall tables) have the same type.
> 	* we could have SYSCALL_DEFINE produce a trivial compat
> wrapper, have explicit COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE discard that thing
> and populate the compat syscall table *entirely* with compat_SyS_...,
> letting the linker sort it out.  That way we don't need to keep
> track of what can use native and what needs compat in each compat
> table on biarch.
> 	* s390 compat wrappers would disappear with that approach.
> 	* we could even stop generating sys_... aliases - if
> syscall table is generated by slapping SyS_... or compat_SyS_...
> on the name given there, we don't need to _have_ those sys_...
> things at all.  All SyS_... would have the same type, so the pile
> in syscalls.h would not be needed - we could generate the externs
> at the same time we generate the syscall table.
> 
> And yes, it's a high-squick approach.  I know and I'm not saying
> it's a good idea.  OTOH, to quote the motto of philosophers and
> shell game operators, "there's something in it"...

FWIW, I have something that is almost reasonable on preprocessor side;
however, that has uncovered the following fun:
void f(unsigned long long);
void g(unsigned a, unsigned b)
{
        f((((unsigned long long)b)<<32)|a);
}

which does compile to "jump to f" on i386, ends up with the following
joy on arm:
        mov     r3, r1
        mov     r2, #0
        push    {r4, lr}
        orr     r2, r2, r0
        mov     r0, r2
        mov     r1, r3
        bl      f
        pop     {r4, lr}
        bx      lr
with gcc6; gcc7 is saner - there we have just
        mov     r2, #0
        orr     r0, r2, r0
        b       f

The former is
	r3 = r1
	r2 = 0
	r2 |= r0
	r0 = r2
	r1 = r3
The latter -
	r2 = 0
	r0 |= r2
which is better, but still bloody odd

And I'm afraid to check what e.g. 4.4 will do with that testcase...