On 06/23/2010 04:41 AM, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:46:04PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:36:21PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>>> I think we wanted that to keep the sys32_ prefixed based naming, to avoid
>>> collisions with generic compat handler names.
>>
>> For native syscalls we do this by adding a arch prefix inside the
>> syscall name, e.g.:
>>
>> arch/s390/kernel/sys_s390.c:SYSCALL_DEFINE(s390_fallocate)(int fd, int mode,
>> loff_t offset,
>> arch/sparc/kernel/sys_sparc_64.c:SYSCALL_DEFINE1(sparc_pipe_real, struct
>> pt_regs *, regs)
>
> In fact we sort of wanted to standardize the name of arch overriden compat
> syscalls, so that userspace programs playing with syscalls tracing won't have
> to deal with arch naming differences.
>
That seems totally wrong in so many ways.
What userspace sees is the system call name, e.g. fallocate or pipe. It
should *not* be visible to userspace that there is an arch-specici
implementation.
There are already a huge amount of gratuitous user space ABI
differences, of course, partly because we *still* don't actually have a
systematic model for argument passing.
-hpa
--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
