On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:18:35PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This adds 21 new system calls on each ABI that has 32-bit time_t
> today. All of these have the exact same semantics as their existing
> counterparts, and the new ones all have macro names that end in 'time64'
> for clarification.
>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> I have a patch that I'll send soon to make x32 use its own table. As
> far as I'm concerned, 547 is *it*. 548 is just a normal number and is
> not special. But let's please not reu
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:08 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:19 AM Geert Uytterhoeven
> wrote:
> > Regardless, I'm wondering what to do with the holes marked "room for
> > arch specific calls".
> > When is a syscall really arch-specific, and can it be added there, and
> > whe
On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 9:19 AM Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 3:29 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:53:25AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:33 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:5
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 5:25 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> This adds 21 new system calls on each ABI that has 32-bit time_t
> today. All of these have the exact same semantics as their existing
> counterparts, and the new ones all have macro names that end in 'time64'
> for clarification.
>
> This g
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 05:18:35PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This adds 21 new system calls on each ABI that has 32-bit time_t
> today. All of these have the exact same semantics as their existing
> counterparts, and the new ones all have macro names that end in 'time64'
> for clarification.
>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 5:25 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This adds 21 new system calls on each ABI that has 32-bit time_t
> today. All of these have the exact same semantics as their existing
> counterparts, and the new ones all have macro names that end in 'time64'
> for clarification.
>
> This get
Hi Russell,
On Sat, Jan 19, 2019 at 3:29 PM Russell King - ARM Linux admin
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:53:25AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:33 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 18, 201
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:53:25AM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:33 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > > - Once we get to 512, we clash with the x32 n
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:53 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I think we have two issues if we reuse those numbers for new syscalls.
> First, I'd really like to see new syscalls be numbered consistently
> everywhere, or at least on all x86 variants, and we can't on x32
> because they mean something els
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:33 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > - Once we get to 512, we clash with the x32 numbers (unless
> > > we remove x32 support first), and probably have to s
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 7:50 PM Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > - Once we get to 512, we clash with the x32 numbers (unless
> > we remove x32 support first), and probably have to skip
> > a few more. I also considered using the 512..547 space
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 8:25 AM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
> This adds 21 new system calls on each ABI that has 32-bit time_t
> today. All of these have the exact same semantics as their existing
> counterparts, and the new ones all have macro names that end in 'time64'
> for clarification.
>
> This g
13 matches
Mail list logo
