On Fri, 27 Feb 2009, Roland McGrath wrote: > > I don't know any other arch well enough to be sure that TIF_32BIT isn't the > wrong test there too. I'd like to leave that worry to the arch maintainers. Agreed - it may be that others will want to not use TIF_32BIT too. It really does make much more sense to have it as a thread-local status flag than as an atomic (and thus expensive to modify) thread-flag, not just on x86. But I think other architectures will find it easier to see what's going on if the code is straightforward and they can just fix their 'is_compat_task()' function. And: > But here is the patch you asked for. Yes, this looks much more straightforward. And I guess the seccomp interaction means that this is potentially a 2.6.29 thing. Not that I know whether anybody actually _uses_ seccomp. It does seem to be enabled in at least Fedora kernels, but it might not be used anywhere. Linus
