On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:18:19PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > The IPC system call handling is highly inconsistent across architectures, > some use sys_ipc, some use separate calls, and some use both. We also > have some architectures that require passing IPC_64 in the flags, and > others that set it implicitly. > > For the additon of a y2083 safe semtimedop() system call, I chose to only It's not critical, but there are two typos in that line: additon -> addition 2083 -> 2038 Gabriel > support the separate entry points, but that requires first supporting > the regular ones with their own syscall numbers. > > The IPC_64 is now implied by the new semctl/shmctl/msgctl system > calls even on the architectures that require passing it with the ipc() > multiplexer. > > I'm not adding the new semtimedop() or semop() on 32-bit architectures, > those will get implemented using the new semtimedop_time64() version > that gets added along with the other time64 calls. > Three 64-bit architectures (powerpc, s390 and sparc) get semtimedop(). > > Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
