From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1751693AbbIQPkF (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:40:05 -0400
Received: from mail-out.m-online.net ([212.18.0.9]:47651 "EHLO
	mail-out.m-online.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750974AbbIQPkD (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:40:03 -0400
X-Auth-Info: ByHHvLteuE96kNzT4iQ9scVlT7dosWYXYRJAxJ0yxZ2/vg3lZ88cJm7sKOn10/Po
From: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
To: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Greg Ungerer <gerg@uclinux.org>,
        "Linux\/m68k" <linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] m68k: Wire up direct ipc calls
References: <1442221006-2027-1-git-send-email-geert@linux-m68k.org>
	<1442221006-2027-4-git-send-email-geert__19660.9066486873$1442221083$gmane$org@linux-m68k.org>
	<mvma8slm7wd.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
	<CAMuHMdUncyXjxkS99SDTjx0-sU26jtCmFuHeU1=0DoqZL2AWvQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<mvmvbb9krpd.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
	<CAMuHMdW+An7Qa5Jt=JpHooy4Q9LopdKJWrpcJ0-0YsFi-i_FUQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Yow: I'm mentally OVERDRAWN!  What's that SIGNPOST up ahead?
 Where's ROD STERLING when you really need him?
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:39:59 +0200
In-Reply-To: <CAMuHMdW+An7Qa5Jt=JpHooy4Q9LopdKJWrpcJ0-0YsFi-i_FUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	(Geert Uytterhoeven's message of "Thu, 17 Sep 2015 17:18:53 +0200")
Message-ID: <mvmpp1hkqb4.fsf@hawking.suse.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:

> Do we currently have architectures that use both sys_ipc and the direct
> syscalls, where keeping ipc_parse_version() in the direct syscalls is required?

IMHO it doesn't make sense to suport IPC_OLD via the direct syscalls,
even for those architectures that started with them in the first place.
There are quite a few architectures that define
ARCH_WANT_IPC_PARSE_VERSION even though they started life after IPC_64
was added.  They probably just forgot to adjust ipc/util.h back then.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."