From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751924Ab1ICOGY (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Sep 2011 10:06:24 -0400 Received: from lennier.cc.vt.edu ([198.82.162.213]:33722 "EHLO lennier.cc.vt.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751708Ab1ICOGV (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Sep 2011 10:06:21 -0400 X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3-dev To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , "H.J. Lu" , Linus Torvalds , Christoph Hellwig , LKML , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , Richard Kuo , Mark Salter , Jonas Bonn , Tobias Klauser Subject: Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:41:16 +0200." <8179020.mG8hWW8BRr@wuerfel> From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu References: <4E582577.2060805@zytor.com> <4E61BB42.4090301@zytor.com> <8179020.mG8hWW8BRr@wuerfel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_1315058668_2927P"; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:04:28 -0400 Message-ID: <14427.1315058668@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> X-Mirapoint-Received-SPF: 198.82.161.152 auth3.smtp.vt.edu Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu 2 pass X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=vivi.cc.vt.edu X-Junkmail-Signature-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A02020B.4E6233F3.0054,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-22 22:03:31, dmn=2009-09-10 00:05:08, mode=single engine X-Junkmail-IWF: false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --==_Exmh_1315058668_2927P Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii On Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:41:16 +0200, Arnd Bergmann said: (Admittedly, I'm tuning in late on this discussion, but...) > For the ioctl interface however, the __u64/__s64 type in the x32 ABI > must be defined with __attribute__((packed,aligned(4))) to match what > the kernel implements because it emulates the x86-32 ABI. Is this a cast-in-stone issue, or is it still not too late to change that? And if we change that, can we simplify anything? --==_Exmh_1315058668_2927P Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 iD8DBQFOYjPscC3lWbTT17ARAgq+AJ4i0WPHug64wIxJkpRJ9v9vDcCFrwCgwd+y tOjjLJMzW536CLfRgthMnc0= =kpeu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --==_Exmh_1315058668_2927P--