From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Zhangjin Wu <falcon@tinylab.org>
Cc: arnd@arndb.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org,
thomas@t-8ch.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] nolibc: add part2 of support for rv32
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 06:42:40 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZH65QKQ1dlY+HsK7@1wt.eu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230606042535.354118-1-falcon@tinylab.org>
Hi Zhangjin,
On Tue, Jun 06, 2023 at 12:25:35PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> The first two convert all compile failures to a return of -ENOSYS, if you do
> like it, welcome your Reviewed-by. These two are required by the coming new
> time64 syscalls for rv32, because they depends on how we cope with the
> unsupported syscalls, returning -ENOSYS is really better than simply fail the
> compiling.
I had a look now and I can sya that I like this. Initially the supported
syscalls were so restricted that it was not even imaginable to accept to
build without any of them, but now that we're completing the list, some
of them are less critical and I don't see why we'd fail to build just
because one is missing. So yeah, a big +1 for -ENOSYS.
> The third one is not that urgent, because some important syscalls are
> still missing for rv32. It is added here only for compile test.
I personally have no opinion on this one. I can't judge whether it will
make things easier or more complicated at this point. It seems to me
that for now it's just avoiding one extra line at the expense of some
$(if) on several lines. Maybe it could help add more such archs, or
maybe it can make them more complicated to debug, I don't know. I'm
interested in others' opinions as well.
Thanks,
Willy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-06-06 4:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-06-03 9:00 [PATCH v3 0/3] nolibc: add part2 of support for rv32 Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-03 9:01 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] tools/nolibc: fix up #error compile failures with -ENOSYS Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-06 7:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-06-07 5:19 ` Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-07 8:45 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-06-07 9:46 ` Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-07 10:02 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-06-07 13:26 ` Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-03 9:04 ` [PATCH v3 2/3] tools/nolibc: fix up undeclared syscall macros with #ifdef and -ENOSYS Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-03 9:05 ` [PATCH v3 3/3] selftests/nolibc: riscv: customize makefile for rv32 Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-06 7:43 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-06-06 11:12 ` Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-06 11:21 ` Arnd Bergmann
2023-06-06 12:07 ` Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-07 1:20 ` Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-07 4:17 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-06-07 6:33 ` Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-07 7:33 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-06-07 8:11 ` Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-07 10:44 ` Willy Tarreau
2023-06-06 4:25 ` [PATCH v3 0/3] nolibc: add part2 of support " Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-06 4:42 ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2023-06-06 6:34 ` Zhangjin Wu
2023-06-06 6:45 ` Willy Tarreau
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=ZH65QKQ1dlY+HsK7@1wt.eu \
--to=w@1wt.eu \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=falcon@tinylab.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=thomas@t-8ch.de \
/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