From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932633AbbDNNiX (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:38:23 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:33992 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753291AbbDNNiP (ORCPT ); Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:38:15 -0400 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:38:10 +0100 From: Catalin Marinas To: "Pinski, Andrew" Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Andreas Kraschitzer , Benedikt Huber , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Andrew Pinski , Kumar Sankaran , "Dr. Philipp Tomsich" , linux-arm-kernel , Christoph Muellner Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/24] ILP32 for ARM64 Message-ID: <20150414133810.GC14546@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <332955D5-3122-437B-93A1-E1973BE09FCA@theobroma-systems.com> <17844053.vZiPCu4un3@wuerfel> <6C99D1ED-37A9-4E68-A137-BF8F78720BFE@caviumnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6C99D1ED-37A9-4E68-A137-BF8F78720BFE@caviumnetworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:45:43AM +0000, Pinski, Andrew wrote: > Also about time_t, my original patch had used 32bit but was asked to > change it to the 64bit one. So now I am upset this being asked again > to change it back. At the time, we were not aware of plans to fix existing 32-bit architectures, so we followed Linus' similar request on x32. > The review process for the linux kernel is much harder than the review > process of gcc or even glibc now. This is not really about kernel code review but about defining the user/kernel ABI. It shouldn't even be a kernel-only decision, we need to get the libc people involved. So yes, you get to prototype such ABI in several kernel patch incarnations and code may be thrown away but that's better than making the wrong decision on the long run. As for gcc, the ILP32 ABI is clear to them, they only have to review implementation details. -- Catalin From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 14:38:10 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v4 00/24] ILP32 for ARM64 In-Reply-To: <6C99D1ED-37A9-4E68-A137-BF8F78720BFE@caviumnetworks.com> References: <332955D5-3122-437B-93A1-E1973BE09FCA@theobroma-systems.com> <17844053.vZiPCu4un3@wuerfel> <6C99D1ED-37A9-4E68-A137-BF8F78720BFE@caviumnetworks.com> Message-ID: <20150414133810.GC14546@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:45:43AM +0000, Pinski, Andrew wrote: > Also about time_t, my original patch had used 32bit but was asked to > change it to the 64bit one. So now I am upset this being asked again > to change it back. At the time, we were not aware of plans to fix existing 32-bit architectures, so we followed Linus' similar request on x32. > The review process for the linux kernel is much harder than the review > process of gcc or even glibc now. This is not really about kernel code review but about defining the user/kernel ABI. It shouldn't even be a kernel-only decision, we need to get the libc people involved. So yes, you get to prototype such ABI in several kernel patch incarnations and code may be thrown away but that's better than making the wrong decision on the long run. As for gcc, the ILP32 ABI is clear to them, they only have to review implementation details. -- Catalin