Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 Nov 2015 16:20:58 -0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 14/19] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it | From | Andrew Pinski <> |
| |
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Monday 30 November 2015 23:21:41 Yury Norov wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 04:34:22PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > On Tuesday 17 November 2015 22:57:52 Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > > On Wednesday 18 November 2015 00:16:54 Yury Norov wrote: >> > > > From: Andrew Pinski <apinski@cavium.com> >> > > > >> > > > Add a separate syscall-table for ILP32, which dispatches either to native >> > > > LP64 system call implementation or to compat-syscalls, as appropriate. >> > > >> > > I like it much better than the previous version, thanks for the rework! >> > >> > Hi Yuri, >> > >> > you must have missed my reply below. Are you still working on ilp32 >> > or did you drop this thread because you got distracted with something >> > else? >> > >> >> I didn't miss it, and I continue with ILP32. I really appreciate your >> attention and time you spend on ILP32. >> >> There's a tricky bug with signal stack, that Andreas also discovered. >> It makes almost all tests that use posix threads crash. I want to fix >> it and other bugs before next submission. >> >> I also update glibc to follow all recommendations, and I want to >> upload it together with kernel patches. > > Ok. As a reviewer, I find long waits between submissions a bit annoying > because that means I have already forgotten everything I commented on > the previous time. > > Could we try to get consensus on how the syscall ABI should look > before you start adapting glibc to another intermediate version?
Sounds good. I have asked Yury to do that just that and change the patches according to the current reviews without testing them with a newer version of glibc. Note getting consensus would be nice soon as possible so I can start working again on glibc patches and make sure the changes that are made to support a slightly different ABI on the userland side is ok with them.
Thanks, Andrew
> I think that would also save you duplicate work, as it's always > possible that we misunderstand each other in the review. Also, > when someone asks you questions during a review, please reply to > those questions so we can get a common understanding of the facts > and document that in the mail archives. > > Arnd
| |