An alternative to the patch I proposed earlier would be to use aliases with the __x32_ prefix for the common syscalls. -- Brian Gerst On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 1:14 PM <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On September 19, 2020 9:23:22 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:35 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 03:24:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > >> > sys_move_pages() is an optional syscall, and once we remove > >> > the compat version of it in favor of the native one with an > >> > in_compat_syscall() check, the x32 syscall table refers to > >> > a __x32_sys_move_pages symbol that may not exist when the > >> > syscall is disabled. > >> > > >> > Change the COND_SYSCALL() definition on x86 to also include > >> > the redirection for x32. > >> > > >> > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Adding the x86 maintainers and Brian Gerst. Brian proposed another > >> problem to the mess that most of the compat syscall handlers used by > >> x32 here: > >> > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/16/664 > >> > >> hpa didn't particularly like it, but with your and my pending series > >> we'll soon use more native than compat syscalls for x32, so something > >> will need to change.. > > > >I'm fine with either solution. > > My main objection was naming. x64 is a widely used synonym for x86-64, and so that is confusing. > > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
