From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from galois.linutronix.de (Galois.linutronix.de [193.142.43.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8A8878F36; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 07:08:36 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750230520; cv=none; b=RO6BhAXUWheheHraV0xJFRZNUQutb7uS9fQRNnVJIeUyQfBzq2WE63EbufzbVrOzNP6KzThLDvLOLwY8g0O3JwhxeuhAUU094cGFVRugYOKDF8ZVjBz5M/LGW3Ksxnjf/CZA9ftnyp3C/XtSgNf3s6wMMpT0WLnlt3kRZ0cs3u0= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1750230520; c=relaxed/simple; bh=cHNGWjr3X5xw71GSXE5j9c2WF7a5O2/l2rfVpkeyTus=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oRFFmXVnJczlg0e1CvmQrMHzfpw76abqNbB6G8Xeh0v8XZlstq9T5TQlK87uKcayg1ZfCDRVxuCTIw0nLsbGIXpyZH2579WMZnlUw3+5BpuE2d6Bta24laxIO9hmII2octo8VYFD21Tzw94wcgPIV2sfqf2HXmYD4BN3448/dGY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=MXsffNgP; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b=WYBe9HNJ; arc=none smtp.client-ip=193.142.43.55 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linutronix.de Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="MXsffNgP"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="WYBe9HNJ" Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:08:33 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1750230514; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Gv+QWbqSIJiJdEEysO8YVV6U0lSqwpLJFjq5bgPk5uo=; b=MXsffNgPYniWRqsOfEgtTPfNzwqWD8WDLcObD0TkBBd0Rd8k8MIwdaUO0+pR0zOTwbA9r/ RJhi2yIJB80TlQgq4Zyc7HiCHOEHQQfwGVICNci1NlB8MoR3re0rtr+ex1a4esAyzdIyh+ Cb4BFi6MlCVM0+cImnLL5uNt8RfyzOUZ2u9Nj4AZ6DXa2GbgxqeutlOqp2wGEwXiETevOc 3Pn+8S3bDgCI6ZVKeQ5pT7a3S1smkucfeLlNt3/W6amrNf+9K8U4aotNcvJtZX5kEMOy+q rAI9bhcWirWeRh9NeXMW8oM6aFUi4uXErfbHdgoFfLErh+SUVHwof0ByvcBQCg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1750230514; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=Gv+QWbqSIJiJdEEysO8YVV6U0lSqwpLJFjq5bgPk5uo=; b=WYBe9HNJxGZPAIYdwN+XrWmq1mD3UbAg+GxdfBtsZRl/jPeziQStfKvzA09RfWOmLyst1o pAMUtqCZ/JIn/iAg== From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: =?utf-8?B?QW5kcsOp?= Almeida Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , Darren Hart , Davidlohr Bueso , Shuah Khan , Arnd Bergmann , Waiman Long , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, kernel-dev@igalia.com Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v4 0/7] futex: Create set_robust_list2 Message-ID: <20250618070833._qeCcHLx@linutronix.de> References: <20250617-tonyk-robust_futex-v4-0-6586f5fb9d33@igalia.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: <20250617-tonyk-robust_futex-v4-0-6586f5fb9d33@igalia.com> On 2025-06-17 15:34:17 [-0300], Andr=C3=A9 Almeida wrote: > This patch adds a new robust_list() syscall. The current syscall > can't be expanded to cover the following use case, so a new one is > needed. This new syscall allows users to set multiple robust lists per > process and to have either 32bit or 64bit pointers in the list. Thank you for the reminder. It was on my list, it slipped. Two questions: - there was a bot warning for v3 but this v4 is a RESEND. It the warning addressed in any way? - You say 64bit x86-64 does not have the problem due the compat syscall. Arm64 has this problem. New arm64 do not provide arm32 facility. You introduce the syscall here. Why not introduce the compat syscall instead? I'm sorry if this has been answered somewhere below but this was one question I had while I initially skimmed over the patches. Sebastian