From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <5.0.0.19.2.20000925110119.01fe1df0@mail.lauterbach.com> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 11:10:45 +0200 To: drepper@cygnus.com (Ulrich Drepper) From: Franz Sirl Subject: Re: [RFC] IPC64 with glibc-2.2 and linux-2.4 Cc: libc-alpha@sources.redhat.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org In-Reply-To: References: <00092421504403.01070@enzo.bigblue.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: At 08:51 25.09.00, Ulrich Drepper wrote: >Franz Sirl writes: > > > I'm especially interested in: > > - did I get the alignment and data types right everywhere? also right for > > PPC64? > > - I would like to bump ipc64_perm.seq to 32bit as it is internally in > > linux-2.4. Is this safe for userspace? Why didn't the other archs bump > it to > > the kernels size? > > - other comments? > >The patch looks reasonable to me but I cannot decide about using it >since the kernel would have to be changed first. Yeah, I know. But it's no problem for me to push this change into the kernel after some people (including you :-)) have agreed to the principle of the patch. What about 'seq'? Can I safely bump it to 32bit for userspace in the final patch? I see no need for the kernel and userspace being different here, but all other archs are limiting it to 16bit, so there may be a reason... Franz. ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/