In message: <20100322185331.ga88...@dragon.nuxi.org> "David O'Brien" <obr...@freebsd.org> 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. Warner _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"