In message: <>
            "David O'Brien" <> writes:
: On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:50:32PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > : On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 07:24:23PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > So the issue isn't as cut and dried as you might think.  There's
: > multiple different conventions used here in addition to your simple
: > example.
: I guess we'd have to take a poll to find out.  Seems pretty cut and dried
: to me.  COMPAT_FREEBSDn has an established context that does not match
: this new usage.  That is - same bit'ness, compatibility with an older
: FreeBSD API for the same architecture.  All the other COMPAT_* are for
: foreign ABI compatibility.  COMPAT_LINUX32 possibly should have been
: "COMPAT_LINUX_X86_64".  (or is it MI and is usable as-is for PowerPC
: and MIPS?  I haven't looked that deeply at the code.)

no, COMPAT_LINUX32 is the right name.  While we don't have PowerPC or
MIPS linux emulation bits in the kernel, the code if for dealing with
running 32-bit binaries on 64-bit machines.  There may be a little
leakage of x86 specific goo here, but not a lot.

_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""

Reply via email to