On 2014/4/22 07:20 PM, Ley Foon Tan wrote: > 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. For ino_t, 32-bit users of linux-generic glibc already use struct stat64, stat64(), etc. to align with 64-bit targets, so in terms of the glibc/kernel interface it doesn't matter much. The in-kernel usage of the ino_t type should be of more concern here. nlink_t appears to be always defined as u32 in <linux/types.h>, not sure if changing it to arch-overridable is reasonable. Chung-Lin -- 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
