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. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
