On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:02:03AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > In the ARM64 ILP32 case, we want to say the syscalls that normally > would pass 64bit as two arguments are now passing as one so want to > use the 64bit naming scheme. > > Signed-off-by: Andrew Pinski <apin...@cavium.com> > --- > include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h | 5 ++++- > 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > index 3336406..0648659 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h > @@ -875,8 +875,11 @@ __SYSCALL(__NR_fork, sys_ni_syscall) > * they take different names. > * Here we map the numbers so that both versions > * use the same syscall table layout. > + * For 32bit abis where 64bit can be passed via one > + * register, use the same naming as the 64bit ones > + * as they will only have a 64 bit off_t. > */ > -#if __BITS_PER_LONG == 64 && !defined(__SYSCALL_COMPAT) > +#if (__BITS_PER_LONG == 64 && !defined(__SYSCALL_COMPAT)) || > defined(__SYSCALL_NONCOMPAT) > #define __NR_fcntl __NR3264_fcntl > #define __NR_statfs __NR3264_statfs > #define __NR_fstatfs __NR3264_fstatfs
I can see why you are defining this. For compat, we don't expose __SYSCALL_COMPAT to user. But this to work with ILP32 UAPI headers we would have to define __SYSCALL_NONCOMPAT in the arm64 uapi unistd.h if !__LP64__. I think we should use some naming closer to what we expose via UAPI already (on other architectures) like __ARCH_WANT_64BIT_SYSCALLS (or maybe we could reuse __ARCH_WANT_SYSCALL_OFF_T). -- Catalin -- 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/
