All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@SteelEye.com>
To: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc: Davide Libenzi <davidel@xmailserver.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] (2nd try)  add epoll compat code to kernel/compat.c ...
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 08:43:05 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1171377785.3382.5.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070213153525.c1440cff.sfr@canb.auug.org.au>

On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 15:35 +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> OK, I have thought about this some more and I *think* the only
> architecture that needs compat_sys_epoll_ctl or compat_sys_epoll_wait is
> ia64 where the 64 bit version of struct epoll_event is different from the
> 32 bit version.  On x86_64, the struct is explictly packed (so it is the
> same as the 32 bit version) and on all the other 64 bit architectures the
> alignment of the u64 is the same as the equivalent 32 bit version.
> 
> Since ia64 already has its own version of these two, we only have to
> worry about epoll_pwait and then the struct epoll_event is only a problem
> for ia64.
> 
> Am I right?  (I have cc'd linux-arch for guidance.)

Not for parisc at the instruction level.  In narrow mode (32 bit mode),
a u64 load has to be done by two 32 bit loads which gives it a 4 byte
alignment requirement.  In wide mode (64 bit mode) the 64 bit load
instruction explicitly requires 8 byte alignment, so our u64 alignment
requirements are different.  However, this is from the machine code
point of view.  I can't say that gcc doesn't enforce an artificial 8
byte alignment of u64 in narrow mode, so I'll defer to the gcc experts
on that one.

James



  parent reply	other threads:[~2007-02-13 14:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-12  0:24 Davide Libenzi
2007-02-13  4:35 ` Stephen Rothwell
2007-02-13  7:26   ` Davide Libenzi
2007-02-13 10:11     ` Stephen Rothwell
2007-02-13 14:43   ` James Bottomley [this message]
2007-02-13 23:17     ` Stephen Rothwell

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1171377785.3382.5.camel@mulgrave.il.steeleye.com \
    --to=james.bottomley@steeleye.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=davidel@xmailserver.org \
    --cc=dwmw2@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sfr@canb.auug.org.au \
    --subject='Re: [patch] (2nd try)  add epoll compat code to kernel/compat.c ...' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.