From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52505)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1TSqQE-0001d0-RO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:34:40 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1TSqQ9-00062U-2H
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:34:34 -0400
Received: from hall.aurel32.net ([88.191.126.93]:37117)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <aurelien@aurel32.net>) id 1TSqQ8-00062H-SQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Oct 2012 10:34:28 -0400
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 15:34:22 +0100
From: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Message-ID: <20121029143422.GA8410@ohm.aurel32.net>
References: <1350871867-27066-1-git-send-email-rth@twiddle.net>
	<20121022055915.GA3260@ohm.aurel32.net>
	<5085B858.9070205@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <5085B858.9070205@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] tcg-i386: Use %gs prefixes for x86_64
	GUEST_BASE
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 07:19:20AM +1000, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 2012-10-22 15:59, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Yes, this is a know fact that this libc function doesn't have a
> > prototype (for instance in the manpage), that said it exists and at
> > least on x32 it's actually a wrapper doing things.
> > 
> > That's why I think it's better to use it than doing the syscall
> > directly.
> 
> Well, we know that arch_prctl is not a wrapper for x86_64.  And x32
> will never be a concern for qemu.  But I guess I can change this if
> you really really insist.
> 

My point here is that arch_prctl might be a wrapper for x86_64 at some
point, so it's better to do it properly now, and not to have to change
it latter.

In order to avoid one more round trip for a new version of the patch, I
have applied it doing this small changes.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno                          GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net