lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 14/19] arm64:ilp32: add sys_ilp32.c and a separate table (in entry.S) to use it
    From
    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


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2015-12-01 01:41    [W:3.069 / U:0.136 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site