* Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:36:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > So are there any deep objections to doing this rename in a single, quick, > > pain-minimized fashion right at the end of the next merge window, when the > > amount of pending patches in various maintainer trees is at a cyclical > > minimum? We can also keep an is_compat_task() migratory define for one more > > cycle just in case. > > Again, what about sparc? There we have both 64bit and 32bit syscalls possible > to issue from the same process *and* no indication which trap had been used; how > do you implement is_compat_syscall() there? There's a TIF_32BIT, which is used > by mmap() and friends, signal delivery, etc., but that's not a matter of which > syscall flavour had been issued. Said that, arch/sparc doesn't use > is_compat_task(); it's open-coded everywhere... Hm, so if Sparc has no notion of compat-ness of the system call then how does it implement runtime compat checks, such as AUDIT_ARCH et al? Thanks, Ingo -- 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
