On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tuesday 22 April 2014 18:37:11 Ley Foon Tan wrote: >> Hi Arnd and Peter Anvin, >> >> Other than 64-bit time_t, clock_t and suseconds_t, can you confirm >> that we don't need to have 64 bit off_t? See detail in link below. >> I can submit the patches for 64-bit time changes >> (include/asm-generic/posix_types.h and other archs) if everyone is >> agreed on this. > > Yes. Okay, will doing that. > >> Excerpt from https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/14/358 : >> "Obviously, we want to use 64-bit off_t, but this is achieved already >> through loff_t, which is used in all places in the asm-generic >> ABI anyway (the syscalls using off_t are stripped out). I don't >> think we want to have the other ones set to 64 bit on ARC or Meta, >> although I'm not 100% sure about ino_t and nlink_t. " > > This is all still true. You should have no syscall using 'off_t', > only loff_t. > > I still don't know whether we would want 32 or 64 bit ino_t and nlink_t > for new architectures. It seems it would gain very little, but have > a noticeable overhead. Anyone have comment on this? Chung-Lin (in CC list) is our nios2 toolchain maintainer. Do you have any comment for 32 or 64 bit ino_t and nlink_t? We will update the toolchain to support 64-bit time_t, so we hope that any other toolchain change can happen in one time. Thanks Regards Ley Foon -- 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
