On Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:10:52 am Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 13/03/2011 08:35 Artem Belevich said the following: > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Alexander Leidinger > > <alexan...@leidinger.net> wrote: > >> But this looks like it will be named linux32 in any case. In the short > >> term I would prefer: > >> ---snip--- > >> #if defined(__amd64__) > >> #define MODNAME "linux32" > >> #elif defined(__i386__) > >> #define MODNAME "linux" > >> #endif > >> ---snip--- > > > > Makes sense. It's what's done with freebsd syscalls -- 'freebsd' for > > native syscalls, freebsd32 for 32-bit compat. > > BTW, in my opinion, it might not make a lot of sense. > That is, we can have native and compat FreeBSD system calls, but Linux system > calls are always compat and never native, whether the emulation is for the > same > arch or not. Explicit suffix makes things clearer. But that's just my > opinion.
However, if we were to go that route, you would need to have 'linux-i386', 'linux-x86-64', 'linux-alpha', etc. Recall that our Alpha port had Linux compat as well, so for it 'linux.ko' was a 64-bit ABI. I think it makes sense to assume that 'linux' maps to Linux compat for whatever the native platform of the running kernel is and to then use suffixes for other platform modes (such as 32-bit compat mode in amd64). -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
