H. Peter Anvin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a resend of the patch set Cedric had sent earlier. I ported
the patch set to 2.6.25-rc8-mm1 and tested on x86 and x86_64.
---
We have run out of the 32 bits in clone_flags !
This patchset introduces 2 new system calls which support
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're going to make it a 64-bit pass it in as a 64-bit number,
instead of breaking it into two numbers.
Maybe I am missing your point. The glibc interface could take a 64bit
parameter, but don't we need to pass 32-bit values into the system
Cedric Le Goater wrote:
OK. I didn't know that. I took sys_llseek() as an example of an interface
to follow when coded clone64().
llseek() was the first system call that took a doublewidth argument.
It's not the one you want to mimic.
-hpa
Paul Menage [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| But as Jon Corbet pointed out in the the thread above, it looked like
| adding a new system call has been the traditional way of solving this
| in Linux so far and there has been no
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a resend of the patch set Cedric had sent earlier. I ported
the patch set to 2.6.25-rc8-mm1 and tested on x86 and x86_64.
---
We have run out of the 32 bits in clone_flags !
This patchset introduces 2 new system calls which support 64bit clone-flags.
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a resend of the patch set Cedric had sent earlier. I ported
the patch set to 2.6.25-rc8-mm1 and tested on x86 and x86_64.
---
We have run out of the 32 bits in clone_flags !
This patchset introduces 2 new system calls
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you're going to make it a 64-bit pass it in as a 64-bit number, instead
of breaking it into two numbers.
Maybe I am missing your point. The glibc interface could take a 64bit
parameter, but don't we need to pass 32-bit values into the system call
on 32 bit
H. Peter Anvin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, this was discussed before in the context of Pavel Emelyanov's patch
http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/1/16/109
along with sys_indirect(). While there was no consensus, it looked like
adding a new system call was better than open ended interfaces.
On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 7:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But as Jon Corbet pointed out in the the thread above, it looked like
adding a new system call has been the traditional way of solving this
in Linux so far and there has been no consensus on a newer approach.
I thought that the
