Re: [PATCH v2 29/29] y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 29/29] y2038: add 64-bit time_t syscalls to all 32-bit architectures
- From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2019 20:33:25 +0100
- Cc: y2038 Mailman List <y2038@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux API <linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, LKML <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-arch <linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Matt Turner <mattst88@xxxxxxxxx>, Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@xxxxxxx>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@xxxxxxxxx>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michal Simek <monstr@xxxxxxxxx>, Paul Burton <paul.burton@xxxxxxxx>, Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx>, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>, Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx>, "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, X86 ML <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@xxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Deepa Dinamani <deepa.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>, "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Firoz Khan <firoz.khan@xxxxxxxxxx>, alpha <linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Parisc List <linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux-sh list <linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sparclinux <sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Network Development <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <CALCETrXqM5mhvwreN5y-9K99h1j9rs9MAVK-cNLC54s1fdHA6w@mail.gmail.com>
- References: <20190118161835.2259170-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20190118161835.2259170-30-arnd@arndb.de> <CALCETrXqM5mhvwreN5y-9K99h1j9rs9MAVK-cNLC54s1fdHA6w@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > - Once we get to 512, we clash with the x32 numbers (unless
> > we remove x32 support first), and probably have to skip
> > a few more. I also considered using the 512..547 space
> > for 32-bit-only calls (which never clash with x32), but
> > that also seems to add a bit of complexity.
>
> I have a patch that I'll send soon to make x32 use its own table. As
> far as I'm concerned, 547 is *it*. 548 is just a normal number and is
> not special. But let's please not reuse 512..547 for other purposes
> on x86 variants -- that way lies even more confusion, IMO.
Fair enough, the space for those numbers is cheap enough here.
I take it you mean we also should not reuse that number space if
we were to decide to remove x32 soon, but you are not worried
about clashing with arch/alpha when everything else uses consistent
numbers?
Arnd
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]