On 02/16/2012 06:16 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > Is there really no syscall that cares about endianness? > > Even if it ends up working, forcing syscall arguments to have a > particular endianness seems like a bad decision, especially if anyone > ever wants to make a 64-bit BPF implementation. (Or if any > architecture adds 128-bit syscall arguments to a future syscall > namespace or whatever it's called. x86-64 has 128-bit xmm > registers...) > Not to mention that the reshuffling code will add totally unnecessary cost to the normal operation. Either way, Indan has it backwards ... it *is* one field, the fact that two operations is needed to access it is a function of the underlying byte code, and even if the byte code can't support it, a JIT could merge adjacent operations if 64-bit operations are possible -- or we could (and arguably should) add 64-bit opcodes in the future for efficiency. -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
