On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Indan Zupancic <indan@xxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, February 22, 2012 20:47, Will Drewry wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Ben Hutchings >>> I would have thought the way to make sure the architecture is always >>> checked is to pack it together with the syscall number. > > I missed that suggestion, putting the syscall number and arch in one > data field would indeed make it harder to not check the arch. Is there enough room? On x86-64 at least, rax could conceivably be extended to 64 bits some day. Bit 30 is already spoken for by x32. --Andy -- 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
