From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com (terminus.zytor.com [198.137.202.10]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BB42B7D5C for ; Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:09:47 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <4C0FE17B.10108@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:46:19 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sukadev Bhattiprolu Subject: Re: [PATCH v21 011/100] eclone (11/11): Document sys_eclone References: <20100601193230.GA17579@us.ibm.com> <20100602013839.GB17579@us.ibm.com> <20100609181431.GB1211@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20100609181431.GB1211@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: randy.dunlap@oracle.com, arnd@arndb.de, Albert Cahalan , linux-kernel , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, roland@redhat.com List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 06/09/2010 11:14 AM, Sukadev Bhattiprolu wrote: > | > | Even for x86, it's an easier API. Callers would be specifying > | two numbers they already have: the argument and return value > | for malloc. Currently the numbers must be added together, > | destroying information, except on hppa (must not add size) > | and ia64 (must use what I'm proposing already). > > I agree its easier and would avoid #ifdefs in the applications. > > Peter, Arnd, Roland - do you have any concerns with requiring all > architectures to specify the stack to eclone() as [base, offset] > Makes sense to me. There might be advantages to be able to track the size of the "stack allocation" even for other architectures, too. -hpa