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


Groups > linux.kernel > #1366587

Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64

From Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64
Date 2016-03-29 21:40 +0200
Message-ID <ri7EB-2oO-7@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <qQTSG-1KH-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <ri1SA-6PD-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <ri4dJ-8rn-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Tuesday 29 March 2016 15:54:52 Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2016, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> 
> > In glibc, I think we need to define fewer entry points, not more.
> > Instead of having both lseek and lseek64, only one of them should
> > be provided, and that should always take a 64-bit offset, calling
> > into the kernel with the _llseek syscall entry.
> 
> lseek64 is part of the public API, on all platforms.  It should be aliased 
> to lseek where possible.

Right, makes sense.

> Strictly, it would be possible to provide it in the API without it being 
> part of the ABI, by arranging the headers so that calls to lseek64 result 
> in objects with a reference to lseek (because it uses the off64_t typedef, 
> it's not valid to declare it yourself rather than including a header that 
> declares it).  I don't think it would be a good idea for a new 
> sub-architecture port to try introducing such a difference from all other 
> ports, however.

How do we do it then? Should we just define __USE_FILE_OFFSET64
unconditionally for all new 32-bit architectures and leave the
code dealing with 32-bit off_t/ino_t in place but unreachable, to
minimize the differences?

Or should all the obsolete types be defined the same way as their
replacements so we have 64-bit __OFF_T_TYPE/__INO_T_TYPE
and use the same binary implementation regardless of FILE_OFFSET_BITS?

	Arnd

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com> - 2016-03-18 11:40 +0100
  Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> - 2016-03-18 17:00 +0100
    Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com> - 2016-03-20 09:20 +0100
      Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com> - 2016-03-21 12:30 +0100
        Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com> - 2016-03-21 20:20 +0100
  Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> - 2016-03-21 10:10 +0100
    Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-21 10:50 +0100
      Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> - 2016-03-21 12:00 +0100
        Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-21 18:10 +0100
      Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com> - 2016-03-26 13:40 +0100
        Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-29 13:00 +0200
          Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-29 14:50 +0200
          Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com> - 2016-03-29 15:30 +0200
            Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-29 15:30 +0200
              Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> - 2016-03-29 18:00 +0200
                Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-29 21:40 +0200
                Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> - 2016-03-29 22:20 +0200
                Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-29 22:30 +0200
                Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> - 2016-03-29 23:10 +0200
                Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2016-03-29 23:50 +0200
              Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com> - 2016-03-31 09:40 +0200
    Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com> - 2016-03-26 14:20 +0100
    Re: [RFC5 PATCH v6 00/21] ILP32 for ARM64 "Zhangjian (Bamvor)" <bamvor.zhangjian@huawei.com> - 2016-03-26 14:50 +0100

csiph-web