Hi Yury,
On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 05:08:26PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> See e.g. 485d52768685 ("sys_personality: change sys_personality() to accept
> "unsigned int" instead of u_long") would have been a candidate which could
> silently break architectures which need compat wrappers.
Ok, this example is of course wrong. But now I can claim that also somebody
who should know better makes these mistakes.. :)
> > I don't know much about s390 specifics. Maybe because of that I do not
> > understand completely your worries. I'm OK with both 1st and 2nd
> > version, but I'd choose 2nd one because it allows inlines, and we
> > don't need the compat_wrapper.c.
>
> It would be only nicer if we can guarentee correctness all the time. That
> being said I'm about to revert my own commit :)
>
> So if you want to go without compat_wrapper.c then we should have a
> solution which will do the right thing all the time without that a system
> call author has to know about the sign and zero extension issue some
> architectures face. It _will_ go wrong.
So I think I can summarize my point to: if you can enforce correctness, why
shouldn't you do it if the performance impact is only a single instruction.
However I'll try to write an addon patch to your patch series. Maybe we can
still get rid of compat_wrapper.c in a way which makes both of us happy.
Also.. the idea with the alias names for compat wrappers does seem to have
the disadvantage that it will pollute /proc/kallsyms for example.
Anyway, I'm not sure if I will be able to come up with something this week
though.
--
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
