From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ivan Ivanov Subject: Re: Can we drop upstream Linux x32 support? Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2018 21:50:23 +0300 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: joseph@codesourcery.com Cc: arnd@arndb.de, tg@mirbsd.de, luto@kernel.org, Linus Torvalds , x86@kernel.org, Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, peterz@infradead.org, bp@alien8.de, fweimer@redhat.com, vapier@gentoo.org, hjl.tools@gmail.com, dalias@libc.org, x32@buildd.debian.org, will.deacon@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Please don't drop x86 support from the Linux kernel ! You may not realize it, but there are plenty of people who care about x86 systems. I have a good old Pentium 4 based computer which is 32-bit, using it for some weird Linux experiments + retro gaming, and if I can't run new Linux kernels there - it would be SAD =D1=81=D1=80, 12 =D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BA. 2018 =D0=B3. =D0=B2 21:15, Joseph Myer= s : > > On Wed, 12 Dec 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > > > MIPS had o32, n32, n64 since like forever. > > > > o32 and n32 are practically the same, the only difference on the > > syscall ABI that I can see are the actual syscall numbers, and > > the 'struct sigcontext' definition. > > And for syscalls that have 64-bit arguments, n32 generally passes those i= n > a single register (like n64), not pairs of registers (like o32). But, > yes, userspace structure layout for n32 is generally much closer to o32 > than to n64. > > -- > Joseph S. Myers > joseph@codesourcery.com