----- On Feb 27, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Linus Torvalds torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Paul's patches have the following structure:
>>
>> struct thread_local_abi {
>> union {
>> struct {
>> u32 cpu_id;
>> u32 seq;
>> };
>> u64 cpu_seq;
>> };
>> unsigned long post_commit_ip;
>> };
>
> Please don't do "unsigned long" in ABI structures any more.
>
> Make it u64, and make sure it is 64-bit aligned (which it would be in
> this case). Make it so that we don't have to have separate compat
> paths.
AFAIU, this "post_commit_ip" field is expected to be updated
with a single-copy-store by user-space. If we want to handle both
32-bit and 64-bit processes, how do you recommend doing this
without an unsigned long type ?
A 64-bit integer would not be a single-copy store for
32-bit processes, but a 32-bit integer would not be large
enough for 64-bit processes.
Would a
union {
uint32_t val32;
uint64_t val64;
} field;
be an acceptable option ? Then the kernel could use
one field or the other depending on the process bitness.
Thanks,
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
