2011/4/21 David Daney :
> On 04/20/2011 06:02 PM, fykc...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> 2011/4/21 David Daney:
Any comment whether this will break non-MIPS 32bit archs, like x86?
>>>
>>> It would break the MIPS n32 ABI userspace.
>>>
>>> On MIPS n32 we are still __LP64__, but 64-bit values are p
On 04/20/2011 06:18 PM, fykc...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/4/21 Eric Paris:
I am pretty arch stupid, and I have no idea at all if it is related, but
I'm looking at kernel commit 5e844b31c2ace282ab8bea630b63e0212d9532d4
which wires up the fanotify syscalls for mips. I see that it used a u64
for a3 an
2011/4/21 Eric Paris :
> I am pretty arch stupid, and I have no idea at all if it is related, but
> I'm looking at kernel commit 5e844b31c2ace282ab8bea630b63e0212d9532d4
> which wires up the fanotify syscalls for mips. I see that it used a u64
> for a3 and a4 when these are only going to be 32 val
On 04/20/2011 06:08 PM, fykc...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/4/21 David Daney:
On 04/20/2011 11:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.04.11 10:36, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
You would have to do something like this (untested):
int foo_fanotify_mark(int fanotify_fd, unsign
2011/4/21 David Daney :
> On 04/20/2011 11:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 20.04.11 10:36, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
>>
>>> You would have to do something like this (untested):
>>>
>>> int foo_fanotify_mark(int fanotify_fd, unsigned int flags, u64 mask,
>>> int d
On 04/20/2011 06:02 PM, fykc...@gmail.com wrote:
2011/4/21 David Daney:
Any comment whether this will break non-MIPS 32bit archs, like x86?
It would break the MIPS n32 ABI userspace.
On MIPS n32 we are still __LP64__, but 64-bit values are passed in a single
register.
It isn't a problem. n32
2011/4/21 David Daney :
>> Any comment whether this will break non-MIPS 32bit archs, like x86?
>
> It would break the MIPS n32 ABI userspace.
>
> On MIPS n32 we are still __LP64__, but 64-bit values are passed in a single
> register.
It isn't a problem. n32 syscall supports 64bit registers, and 64-
On Wed, 20.04.11 15:20, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
> >Hmm, OK. Do you happen to know which predefined userspace macro we
> >should check against for the o32 ABI?
> >
> >There seems to be __mips__, but that probably covers both ABIs?
>
> How about (untested):
>
> #if defined(_
On 04/20/2011 12:55 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.04.11 11:43, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
On 04/20/2011 11:34 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.04.11 11:19, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
On 04/20/2011 11:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote
On Wed, 20.04.11 11:43, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
>
> On 04/20/2011 11:34 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >On Wed, 20.04.11 11:19, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>On 04/20/2011 11:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >>>On Wed, 20.04.11 10:36, David
On 04/20/2011 11:34 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.04.11 11:19, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
On 04/20/2011 11:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.04.11 10:36, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
You would have to do something like this (unteste
On Wed, 20.04.11 11:19, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
>
> On 04/20/2011 11:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >On Wed, 20.04.11 10:36, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
> >
> >>You would have to do something like this (untested):
> >>
> >>int foo_fanotify_mark(int fa
On 04/20/2011 11:09 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.04.11 10:36, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
You would have to do something like this (untested):
int foo_fanotify_mark(int fanotify_fd, unsigned int flags, u64 mask,
int dfd, const char __user * pathname)
{
u
On Wed, 20.04.11 10:36, David Daney (dda...@caviumnetworks.com) wrote:
> You would have to do something like this (untested):
>
> int foo_fanotify_mark(int fanotify_fd, unsigned int flags, u64 mask,
> int dfd, const char __user * pathname)
> {
> u32 mask_low = (u32)mask;
> u32 mask_h
On 04/20/2011 09:14 AM, Eric Paris wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 12:16 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:22:08AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Wed, 20.04.11 09:15, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
2011/4/20 Lennart Poettering
On Thu, 14.04.11 17:34, f
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 12:16 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:22:08AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Wed, 20.04.11 09:15, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 2011/4/20 Lennart Poettering
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 14.04.11 17:34, fykc...@gma
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 03:22:08AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 20.04.11 09:15, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > 2011/4/20 Lennart Poettering
> > >
> > > On Thu, 14.04.11 17:34, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/src/missin
2011/4/20 Lennart Poettering :
> On Wed, 20.04.11 09:15, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> 2011/4/20 Lennart Poettering
>> >
>> > On Thu, 14.04.11 17:34, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >
>> > > diff --git a/src/missing.h b/src/missing.h
>> > > index 35e209f..b36
On Wed, 20.04.11 09:15, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> 2011/4/20 Lennart Poettering
> >
> > On Thu, 14.04.11 17:34, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > > diff --git a/src/missing.h b/src/missing.h
> > > index 35e209f..b367831 100644
> > > --- a/src/missing.h
>
2011/4/20 Lennart Poettering
>
> On Thu, 14.04.11 17:34, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> > diff --git a/src/missing.h b/src/missing.h
> > index 35e209f..b367831 100644
> > --- a/src/missing.h
> > +++ b/src/missing.h
> > @@ -125,7 +125,12 @@ static inline int fanotify_init(unsigned
On Thu, 14.04.11 17:34, fykc...@gmail.com (fykc...@gmail.com) wrote:
> diff --git a/src/missing.h b/src/missing.h
> index 35e209f..b367831 100644
> --- a/src/missing.h
> +++ b/src/missing.h
> @@ -125,7 +125,12 @@ static inline int fanotify_init(unsigned int flags,
> unsigned int event_f_flags)
>
Hi all,
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=%23618562
MIPS ABI enforces that 64bit arguments should be 64bit-aligned, and the
third argument of syscall(__NR_fanotify_mark, ...) is 64bit and not
64bit-aligned on 32bit mips platform, thus extra padding is inserted before
it. The syscal
22 matches
Mail list logo
