On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 12:17 AM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Deepa Dinamani
>> wrote:
> Right. There are three options:
>
> 1. Use two configs to identify which syscalls need not be supported by
> new archit
On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:17 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Deepa Dinamani
> wrote:
I decided against using LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS to conditionally compile
legacy time syscalls such as sys_nanosleep because this will need to
enclose compat_sys_nanosleep
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 11:29 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
>>> I decided against using LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS to conditionally compile
>>> legacy time syscalls such as sys_nanosleep because this will need to
>>> enclose compat_sys_nanosleep as well. So, defining it as
>>>
>>> config LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALL
>> I decided against using LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS to conditionally compile
>> legacy time syscalls such as sys_nanosleep because this will need to
>> enclose compat_sys_nanosleep as well. So, defining it as
>>
>> config LEGACY_TIME_SYSCALLS
>> def_bool 64BIT || !64BIT_TIME
>>
>> will not include
On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:30 PM, Deepa Dinamani wrote:
> The series is a preparation series for individual architectures
> to use 64 bit time_t syscalls in compat and 32 bit emulation modes.
>
> This is a follow up to the series Arnd Bergmann posted:
> https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-05/
The series is a preparation series for individual architectures
to use 64 bit time_t syscalls in compat and 32 bit emulation modes.
This is a follow up to the series Arnd Bergmann posted:
https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-05/msg00070.html [1]
Big picture is as per the lwn article:
https:/
