From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] xfrm: add x86 CONFIG_COMPAT support Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20100407.164842.54065324.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20100407.030850.04450543.davem@davemloft.net> <20100407133528.GD22518@Chamillionaire.breakpoint.cc> <4BBC8C8F.9020907@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: fw@strlen.de, netdev@vger.kernel.org, johannes@sipsolutions.net To: kaber@trash.net Return-path: Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:48195 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756122Ab0DGXsj (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Apr 2010 19:48:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4BBC8C8F.9020907@trash.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Patrick McHardy Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:45:51 +0200 > Florian Westphal wrote: >> David Miller wrote: >>> From: Florian Westphal >>> Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:27:07 +0200 >> >> [..] >> >>>> I sent a patch that solved this by adding a sys_compat_write syscall >>>> and a ->compat_aio_write() to struct file_operations to the >>>> vfs mailing list, but that patch was ignored by the vfs people, >>>> and the x86 folks did not exactly like the idea either. >>>> >>>> So this leaves three alternatives: >>>> 1 - drop the whole idea and keep the current status. >>>> 2 - Add new structure definitions (with new numbering) that would work >>>> everywhere, keep the old ones for backwards compatibility (This >>>> was suggested by Arnd Bergmann). > > Given that there is only a quite small number of users of this > interface, that would in my opinion be the best way. Can you explain that line of reasoning? It's not that there are only "3 or 4 tools" using these interfaces, it's the fact that 32-bit binaries of those tools are on millions and millions of systems out there.