From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Cc: "Jisheng Zhang" <jszhang@marvell.com>,
devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
"Riley Andrews" <riandrews@android.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Arve Hjønnevåg" <arve@android.com>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] binder: let ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT be selectable on 32bit ARM
Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2017 22:37:00 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170823053700.GC23426@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALAqxLV50xNE8nBF4kfEgA3-OMUP=GYdh7DPJfYnxNjEszZD0Q@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 08:14:10PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 8:01 PM, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:57:04 -0700 John Stultz wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:56 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 7:34 PM, Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 22 Aug 2017 18:51:08 -0700 Greg KH wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 07:03:05PM +0800, Jisheng Zhang wrote:
> >> >>> > As noted in commit d0bdff0db809 ("staging: Fix build issues with new
> >> >>> > binder API"), we can add back the choice for 32bit ARM "once a 64bit
> >> >>> > __get_user_asm_* implementation is merged." Commit e38361d032f1 ("ARM:
> >> >>> > 8091/2: add get_user() support for 8 byte types") has added the
> >> >>> > support, so it's time to let ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT be selectable on
> >> >>> > 32bit ARM
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Ok, but:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Signed-off-by: Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com>
> >> >>> > ---
> >> >>> > drivers/android/Kconfig | 2 +-
> >> >>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > diff --git a/drivers/android/Kconfig b/drivers/android/Kconfig
> >> >>> > index 832e885349b1..aca5dc30b97b 100644
> >> >>> > --- a/drivers/android/Kconfig
> >> >>> > +++ b/drivers/android/Kconfig
> >> >>> > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ config ANDROID_BINDER_DEVICES
> >> >>> > therefore logically separated from the other devices.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > config ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT
> >> >>> > - bool
> >> >>> > + bool "Use old (Android 4.4 and earlier) 32-bit binder API"
> >> >>> > depends on !64BIT && ANDROID_BINDER_IPC
> >> >>>
> >> >>> You don't actually change the depends line :(
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Please fix up, and test it, and then resend.
> >> >>
> >> >> IHOM, the dependency is correct: 64bit platforms don't support
> >> >> ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT. What do you think?
> >> >
> >> > I think this indicates the commit message is unclear.
> >> >
> >> > Part of it is that the config is inverted from the description. The
> >> > patch doesn't enable the 32bit legacy binder ABI on 32bit systems, it
> >> > just allows the option to be unselected, so that the 64bit ABI will be
> >> > used on 32bit systems.
> >> >
> >> > Conceptually I don't have an objection to the change (though maybe try
> >> > to rework the commit message), but I don't have anything to actually
> >> > test it on right now, so I'm hesitant to ack it.
> >>
> >> It might also be good to add some detail as to the motivation for this
> >> change? What benefit does it bring to 32bit platforms to use the newer
> >> 64bit ABI?
> >>
> >
> > To be honest, the motivation is just to add one more choice for 32bit
> > platform and let the code be tested under 32bit platform. Maybe we
> > could then remove ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT and the related code after
> > some time?
>
> I'm mixed. It would be nice to deprecate the old 32bit ABI, but binder
> is a real Linux kernel interface now, so we don't break compatibility
> (at least if it affects anyone - which may be questionable here - not
> sure there's many upstream 32bit platforms concerned with running
> legacy Android builds). But just adding the extra option just means
> there's yet another configuration to test and to keep working. So you
> may want to articulate the benefits better to make this worth the
> effort of doing a full transition.
Future versions of Android "might" be changing if they support, or not,
all of the different combinations of 32/64 bit apis. So maybe we should
wait until a real solid direction with regards to this is published
before worrying about dropping anything...
thanks,
greg k-h
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-23 5:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-08 11:03 [PATCH] binder: let ANDROID_BINDER_IPC_32BIT be selectable on 32bit ARM Jisheng Zhang
2017-08-23 1:51 ` Greg KH
2017-08-23 2:34 ` Jisheng Zhang
2017-08-23 2:56 ` John Stultz
2017-08-23 2:56 ` [EXT] " Jisheng Zhang
2017-08-23 2:57 ` John Stultz
2017-08-23 3:01 ` Jisheng Zhang
2017-08-23 3:14 ` John Stultz
2017-08-23 5:37 ` Greg KH [this message]
2017-08-23 18:48 ` Rob Herring
2017-08-24 1:44 ` Jisheng Zhang
2017-08-23 5:35 ` Greg KH
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=20170823053700.GC23426@kroah.com \
--to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=arve@android.com \
--cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=jszhang@marvell.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=riandrews@android.com \
/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