lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 00/24] ILP32 for ARM64
Date
On Tuesday 14 April 2015 17:55:00 Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:29:36PM +0200, Dr. Philipp Tomsich wrote:

> > So tv_nsec needs to be 32bit on ILP32, as we would otherwise break the C
> > language. Any program that assumes that tv_nsec is sizeof(long) would be
> > correct and it would be unexpected and surprising behaviour [even though it
> > would be consider a good programming style] if one would need to explicitly
> > ask for the sizeof(ts.tv_nsec). Having the same problem on x32 doesn’t seem
> > like a good justification to do the same.
>
> From a standards perspective, that's clear, and I'm fine with not making
> the same choice as x32. I think on x32 it was a side-effect of glibc
> defining tv_nsec as __syscall_slong_t and the kernel defining
> __kernel_long_t to 64-bit.

I'm pretty sure that this part of the x32 ABI was a deliberate choice
in full knowledge of the tradeoffs.

> > For time_t, I don’t see the need to have a 32bit type yet.
> > As long as the the type is properly exposed through header files (and user
> > programs can thus recreate the kernel’s data model), we should be safe.
>
> The problem with a 64-bit time_t is that the timespec structure looks
> like neither compat32 nor native 64-bit. If we make the AArch32 and
> native ILP32 exclusive and build time, it makes it easier, otherwise we
> need to support a third ABI in the kernel.

Exactly, which is why the layout was chosen to be the same as x86-64
for x32.

> > Can we thus agree on the following for the next revision of the patch-set:
> > (1) We retain a 64bit time_t, but implement different sizes (between ILP32 and
> > LP64) for ‘tv_nsec' in 'struct timespec’?
> > (2) We use the 64bit system calls whereever possible (i.e. no register splitting).
>
> As I mentioned above, timespec and possibly other structures no longer
> like any of the existing ABIs. Do we know how many syscalls are
> affected?
>
> The alternative is 32-bit time_t which makes it easier to use the compat
> syscall implementations (not numbers). It also depends on how we plan to
> fix the 2038 problem. For new 32-bit only architectures, are we going to
> require them to use a 64-bit time_t or we get alternative time64_t and
> timespec64 specs?

No, we had originally planned that a few years ago, but after deciding that
we are fixing this problem for all 32-bit machines, and also seeing the
magnitude of changes involved in that, I think we have a general consensus
that we do not want to add special cases for architectures that use 64-bit
time_t before everyone else does.

Arnd


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-15 15:21    [W:0.072 / U:7.944 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site