Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1336128 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic  headers Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com> - 2016-02-17 09:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic  headers Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> - 2016-02-17 15:00 +0100

#1336128 — Re: [PATCH 1/5] all: s390: move wrapper infrastructure to generic headers

On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:41:56PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > However I'll try to write an addon patch to your patch series. Maybe we can
> > still get rid of compat_wrapper.c in a way which makes both of us happy.
> > Also.. the idea with the alias names for compat wrappers does seem to have
> > the disadvantage that it will pollute /proc/kallsyms for example.
> > 
> > Anyway, I'm not sure if I will be able to come up with something this week
> > though.
> 
> Great, I'm looking forward...

Hi Yuri,

after playing around with this a bit I couldn't come up with a solution
that I'm happy with, unfortunately.

So in order to make some progress here I'd vote that we simply move the
existing compat_wrapper.c from arch/s390 to common code like you did in
your first approach and leave the existing SYSCALL macros alone.

That will have hardly any effect to anybody else and your problem is
solved while s390 still works.

Does that make sense?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1336447

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 09:22:10AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 11:41:56PM +0300, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > However I'll try to write an addon patch to your patch series. Maybe we can
> > > still get rid of compat_wrapper.c in a way which makes both of us happy.
> > > Also.. the idea with the alias names for compat wrappers does seem to have
> > > the disadvantage that it will pollute /proc/kallsyms for example.
> > > 
> > > Anyway, I'm not sure if I will be able to come up with something this week
> > > though.
> > 
> > Great, I'm looking forward...
> 
> Hi Yuri,
> 
> after playing around with this a bit I couldn't come up with a solution
> that I'm happy with, unfortunately.
> 
> So in order to make some progress here I'd vote that we simply move the
> existing compat_wrapper.c from arch/s390 to common code like you did in
> your first approach and leave the existing SYSCALL macros alone.
> 
> That will have hardly any effect to anybody else and your problem is
> solved while s390 still works.
> 
> Does that make sense?
> 

OK. This week I'll split v1 as I did with v2, and send it here. So
we'll have two versions, and so will start true elections. :)

> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web