From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc: Make set_endian() return EINVAL when not supporting little endian
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 00:23:50 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <871r6gb7yh.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <df2e9b65-9303-070e-b803-c64e20e2620d@csgroup.eu>
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes:
> Le 26/08/2021 à 05:41, Michael Ellerman a écrit :
>> Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu> writes:
>>> There is no point in modifying MSR_LE bit on CPUs not supporting
>>> little endian.
>>
>> Isn't that an ABI break?
>
> Or an ABI fix ? I don't know.
It could break existing applications, even if the new semantics make
more sense. So that's a break IMHO :)
> My first thought was that all other 32 bits architectures were returning -EINVAL, but looking at the
> man page of prctl, it is explicit that this is powerpc only.
It could be generic, but yeah seems we're the only arch that implements
it.
>> set_endian(PR_ENDIAN_BIG) should work on a big endian CPU, even if it
>> does nothing useful.
>
> Fair enough. But shouldn't in that case get_endian() return PR_ENDIAN_BIG instead of returning EINVAL ?
> We can do one or the other, but I think it should at least be consistant between them, shouldn't it ?
It should be consistent, but it isn't, and if we change it now we
potentially break existing userspace, which is bad.
I don't think it's widely used, and the risk of breakage would be
minimal, but it's not zero.
So I'm not sure it's worth changing it just for the sake of consistency.
cheers
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-26 14:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-25 13:43 [PATCH] powerpc: Make set_endian() return EINVAL when not supporting little endian Christophe Leroy
2021-08-26 3:41 ` Michael Ellerman
2021-08-26 4:55 ` Christophe Leroy
2021-08-26 14:23 ` Michael Ellerman [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=871r6gb7yh.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au \
--to=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox