Re: RFD: x32 ABI system call numbers

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Sunday 04 September 2011 15:13:18 H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sunday 04 September 2011 14:25:53 H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> >> >> #define __NR_x32_recvfrom
> >> >> >> #define __NR_x32_sendmsg
> >> >> >> #define __NR_x32_recvmsg
> >> >> >> #define __NR_x32_recvmmsg
> >> >> >> #define __NR_x32_sendmmsg
> >> >> >
> >> >> > These today use the MSG_CMSG_COMPAT flag to distinguish native and compat
> >> >> > calls. Do you plan to have another flag here to handle cmsg time values?
> >> >>
> >> >> I am using x86-32 calls for them.
> >> >
> >> > But isn't that broken? These all pass u64 or time_t values at some point.
> >> >
> >>
> >> time_t isn't a problem since time_t/timeval/timespec are identical for
> >> x32 and x86-64.  As for u64, I added NATIVE_LONG_TYPE, which is
> >> defined as long long for x32,  and use it instead of long in types for
> >> 64bit system calls.
> >
> > Sorry, I misread you as saying you use the compat syscalls for these.
> > If you use the native 64 bit syscalls, you have the opposite problem:
> > Some network protocols (e.g. netlink or rxrpc) use other data structures
> > that require conversion, e.g. 'long' members that x32 will get wrong.
> 
> For those, I use x86-32 calls.

So to ask again, what do you plan to do about SCM_TIMESTAMP*?

	Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/