Re: [PSEUDOPATCH] rename is_compat_task

[Al Viro]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 05:36:49AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> So are there any deep objections to doing this rename in a single, quick, 
> pain-minimized fashion right at the end of the next merge window, when the amount 
> of pending patches in various maintainer trees is at a cyclical minimum? We can 
> also keep an is_compat_task() migratory define for one more cycle just in case.

Again, what about sparc?  There we have both 64bit and 32bit syscalls possible
to issue from the same process *and* no indication which trap had been used;
how do you implement is_compat_syscall() there?  There's a TIF_32BIT, which
is used by mmap() and friends, signal delivery, etc., but that's not a matter
of which syscall flavour had been issued.  Said that, arch/sparc doesn't use
is_compat_task(); it's open-coded everywhere...
--
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/