From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] xfrm: add x86 CONFIG_COMPAT support Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:45:51 +0200 Message-ID: <4BBC8C8F.9020907@trash.net> References: <1270506431-25578-1-git-send-email-fw@strlen.de> <20100407.030850.04450543.davem@davemloft.net> <20100407133528.GD22518@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net To: Florian Westphal Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:47791 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932407Ab0DGNpx (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:45:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100407133528.GD22518@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Florian Westphal wrote: > David Miller wrote: >> From: Florian Westphal >> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:27:07 +0200 > > [..] > >>> I sent a patch that solved this by adding a sys_compat_write syscall >>> and a ->compat_aio_write() to struct file_operations to the >>> vfs mailing list, but that patch was ignored by the vfs people, >>> and the x86 folks did not exactly like the idea either. >>> >>> So this leaves three alternatives: >>> 1 - drop the whole idea and keep the current status. >>> 2 - Add new structure definitions (with new numbering) that would work >>> everywhere, keep the old ones for backwards compatibility (This >>> was suggested by Arnd Bergmann). Given that there is only a quite small number of users of this interface, that would in my opinion be the best way. >>> 3 - apply this patch set and tell userspace to move the sendmsg() when >>> they want to work with xfrm on x86_64 with 32 bit userland. >> So do we know of any xfrm netlink apps that do not use sendmsg()?