On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:53:12PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 02 September 2015 13:16:19 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 09/02/2015 02:48 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > Should all other architectures follow suit? > > > Or should we follow the s390 approach: > > > > > > > It is up to the maintainer(s), largely dependent on how likely you are > > going to want to support this in your libc, but in general, socketcall > > is an abomination which there is no reason not to bypass. > > > > So follow suit unless you have a strong reason not to. > > +1 > > In my y2038 syscall series, I'm adding a new recvmmsg64 call, and > we may decide to add new setsockopt/getsockopt variants as well. > This is probably not the last change to socketcall, and it would > be made much easier if all architectures had separate calls here. > > It seems that there are very few architectures that don't already have > the separate calls: > > $ git grep -l __NR_socketcall arch/*/include/uapi | xargs git grep -L recvmsg > arch/cris/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > arch/frv/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > arch/m32r/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > arch/mn10300/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > > These are of course all examples of architectures that originally followed > the i386 syscall scheme closely rather than trying to leave out obsolete > calls. FWIW, the s390 approach (ignoring the "new" system calls) is only temporarily. I'll enable the seperate calls later when I have time to test everything, especially the glibc stuff. The same is true for the ipc system call. (any reason why the seperate system calls haven't been enabled on x86 now as well?) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
