On Thursday 12 November 2015 14:47:18 Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> writes:
>
> > On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:44:55 Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> writes:
> >>
> >> > What do you mean with 32-bit off_t?
> >>
> >> An ABI with 32-bit off_t, ie. all currently implemented 32-bit ABIs.
> >>
> >> > Do you mean that glibc emulates a 32-bit off_t on top of the 64-bit
> >> > __kernel_loff_t?
> >>
> >> Glibc is bridging the user-space ABI to the kernel ABI.
> >
> > Ok, but why?
>
> That's how the ABI is defined right now. I didn't make that up.
Ok, I guess it will remain a mystery then.
Should we perhaps define __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_OFF_T for the unistd.h
file then, so we provide both the off_t and the loff_t based syscalls?
That would avoid the extra wrapper in glibc when using a 32-bit
off_t if that is the preferred mode for user space.
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
