Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions

2012-09-05 Thread Chris Metcalf
On 8/21/2012 4:17 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 21 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:37:53PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> No, the uname output is meant to tell you about the system, not the >>> instruction set that you are using (you already know that in c

Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions

2012-08-21 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Tuesday 21 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:37:53PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 16 August 2012, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > This looks wrong: PER_LINUX/PER_LINUX32 decides over the output of the > > > > uname system call, while TIF_32BIT decides ove

Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions

2012-08-21 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 14:27:31 Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 07:17:19PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > > But I can see on x86 that it always reports x86_64 even if the task is > > > x86_32. > > > > Really? > >

Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions

2012-08-21 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 07:17:19PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Catalin Marinas > wrote: > > But I can see on x86 that it always reports x86_64 even if the task is > > x86_32. > > Really? > > $ uname -m > x86_64 > $ linux32 uname -m > i686 > $ Well, you se

Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions

2012-08-21 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > But I can see on x86 that it always reports x86_64 even if the task is > x86_32. Really? $ uname -m x86_64 $ linux32 uname -m i686 $ On Ubuntu 2.6.32-42-generic Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven --

Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions

2012-08-21 Thread Catalin Marinas
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 01:37:53PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 16 August 2012, Will Deacon wrote: > > > This looks wrong: PER_LINUX/PER_LINUX32 decides over the output of the > > > uname system call, while TIF_32BIT decides over the instruction set > > > when returning to user space.

Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions

2012-08-16 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Thursday 16 August 2012, Will Deacon wrote: > > This looks wrong: PER_LINUX/PER_LINUX32 decides over the output of the > > uname system call, while TIF_32BIT decides over the instruction set > > when returning to user space. You definitely should not set the personality > > to the value you pass

Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions

2012-08-16 Thread Will Deacon
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 03:15:39PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > + > > +void elf_set_personality(int personality) > > +{ > > + switch (personality & PER_MASK) { > > + case PER_LINUX: > > + clear_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT);

Re: [PATCH v2 16/31] arm64: ELF definitions

2012-08-15 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Tuesday 14 August 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: > + > +void elf_set_personality(int personality) > +{ > + switch (personality & PER_MASK) { > + case PER_LINUX: > + clear_thread_flag(TIF_32BIT); > + break; > + case PER_LINUX32: > + set_th