> On Sep 19, 2020, at 10:14 AM, hpa@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > > On September 19, 2020 9:23:22 AM PDT, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 10:35 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 03:24:36PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> sys_move_pages() is an optional syscall, and once we remove >>>> the compat version of it in favor of the native one with an >>>> in_compat_syscall() check, the x32 syscall table refers to >>>> a __x32_sys_move_pages symbol that may not exist when the >>>> syscall is disabled. >>>> >>>> Change the COND_SYSCALL() definition on x86 to also include >>>> the redirection for x32. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Adding the x86 maintainers and Brian Gerst. Brian proposed another >>> problem to the mess that most of the compat syscall handlers used by >>> x32 here: >>> >>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/6/16/664 >>> >>> hpa didn't particularly like it, but with your and my pending series >>> we'll soon use more native than compat syscalls for x32, so something >>> will need to change.. >> >> I'm fine with either solution. > > My main objection was naming. x64 is a widely used synonym for x86-64, and so that is confusing. > > The way I deal with the syscall wrappers is that I assume the naming makes no sense whatsoever, and I go from there. With this perspective, the patches are neither an improvement nor a worsening of the current situation. (Similarly, the last column of the tables is useless garbage. My last attempt to fix that stalled.)
