[lkml]   [2010]   [Mar]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 64-syscall args on 32-bit vs syscall()
On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 07:35 +1100, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 12:41 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > I don't see why syscall() can't change the type for its first argument
> > -- it seems to be exactly what symbol versioning is for.
> >
> > Doesn't change the fact that it is fundamentally broken, of course.
> No need to change the type of the first arg and go for symbol
> versionning if you do something like I proposed earlier, there will be
> no conflict between syscall() and __syscall() and both variants can
> exist.
One concern is the new syscall and the kernel have to match and mixing
will not work. your proposal seems to impact all syscalls not just the
one called via syscall API. These syscalls get generated inline which
makes static linking very dangerous ...

So I think you do need both symbol versioning and kernel feature stubs
(like xstat). That gets to be a lot of work

> Cheers,
> Ben.

 \ /
  Last update: 2010-03-16 22:49    [W:0.079 / U:0.872 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site