From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752587AbcB2KCQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:02:16 -0500 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([198.137.202.9]:54464 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751126AbcB2KCO (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Feb 2016 05:02:14 -0500 Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 11:01:10 +0100 From: Peter Zijlstra To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Mathieu Desnoyers , "H. Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , Russell King , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-api , Paul Turner , Andrew Hunter , Andy Lutomirski , Andi Kleen , Dave Watson , Chris Lameter , Ben Maurer , rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Michael Kerrisk Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of running thread Message-ID: <20160229100110.GH6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> References: <967083634.8940.1456507201156.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <724964987.9217.1456518255392.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <7096DA23-3908-40DC-A46B-C4CF2252CEE8@zytor.com> <1150363257.9781.1456533630895.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <56D14132.5050100@zytor.com> <2053850250.10158.1456582501604.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <20160227145809.GD6356@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:35:28AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 6:58 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > Paul's patches have the following structure: > > > > struct thread_local_abi { > > union { > > struct { > > u32 cpu_id; > > u32 seq; > > }; > > u64 cpu_seq; > > }; > > unsigned long post_commit_ip; > > }; > > Please don't do "unsigned long" in ABI structures any more. > > Make it u64, and make sure it is 64-bit aligned (which it would be in > this case). Make it so that we don't have to have separate compat > paths. Yes, for sure. I was 'only' trying to reflect the state of the last rseq patches. But yes, I should have called that out and avoided 'confusion'.