On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 02:27:36PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 09:48:02AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 9:42 AM, Yury Norov <ynorov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 08, 2018 at 06:32:07PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > >> On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 11:18:49AM +0300, Yury Norov wrote: > > >> > diff --git a/arch/Kconfig b/arch/Kconfig > > >> > index 76c0b54443b1..ee079244dc3c 100644 > > >> > --- a/arch/Kconfig > > >> > +++ b/arch/Kconfig > > >> > @@ -264,6 +264,21 @@ config ARCH_THREAD_STACK_ALLOCATOR > > >> > config ARCH_WANTS_DYNAMIC_TASK_STRUCT > > >> > bool > > >> > > > >> > +config ARCH_32BIT_OFF_T > > >> > + bool > > >> > + depends on !64BIT > > >> > + help > > >> > + All new 32-bit architectures should have 64-bit off_t type on > > >> > + userspace side which corresponds to the loff_t kernel type. This > > >> > + is the requirement for modern ABIs. Some existing architectures > > >> > + already have 32-bit off_t. This option is enabled for all such > > >> > + architectures explicitly. Namely: arc, arm, blackfin, cris, frv, > > >> > + h8300, hexagon, m32r, m68k, metag, microblaze, mips32, mn10300, > > >> > + nios2, openrisc, parisc32, powerpc32, score, sh, sparc, tile32, > > >> > + unicore32, x86_32 and xtensa. This is the complete list. Any > > >> > + new 32-bit architecture should declare 64-bit off_t type on user > > >> > + side and so should not enable this option. > > >> > > >> Do you know if this is the case for riscv and nds32, merged in the > > >> meantime? If not, I suggest you drop this patch altogether and just > > >> define force_o_largefile() for arm64/ilp32 as we don't seem to stick to > > >> "all new 32-bit architectures should have 64-bit off_t". > > > > > > I wrote this patch at request of Arnd Bergmann. This is actually his > > > words that all new 32-bit architectures should have 64-bit off_t. So > > > I was surprized when riscv was merged with 32-bit off_t (and I didn't > > > follow nds32). > > > > > > If this rule is still in force, we'd better add new exceptions to this > > > patch. Otherwise, we can drop it. > > > > > > Arnd, could you please comment it? > > > > I completely forgot about it and had assumed that it was merged long > > ago, sorry about that. > > Hi Arnd, > > There are 3 patches like this in ILP32 series that change ABI for new > targets. I've submitted them in separated series: > https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/9/25/574 > > They all seems to be acked by you. If you ready to upstream the > series, I can rebase it and add riscv32 and nds32 exceptions. > > If Palmer and riscv people will decide to follow new rules, we can > easily drop the exception. Ping?
