On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - Once we get to 512, we clash with the x32 numbers (unless
> > we remove x32 support first), and probably have to skip
> > a few more. I also considered using the 512..547 space
> > for 32-bit-only calls (which never clash with x32), but
> > that also seems to add a bit of complexity.
>
> I have a patch that I'll send soon to make x32 use its own table. As
> far as I'm concerned, 547 is *it*. 548 is just a normal number and is
> not special. But let's please not reuse 512..547 for other purposes
> on x86 variants -- that way lies even more confusion, IMO.
Fair enough, the space for those numbers is cheap enough here.
I take it you mean we also should not reuse that number space if
we were to decide to remove x32 soon, but you are not worried
about clashing with arch/alpha when everything else uses consistent
numbers?
Arnd
