Andi Kleen writes: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 01:28:57AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 00:38:06 +1000 Stephen Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Like below? I am not sure that this is better as we duplicate the code > > > that selects the write_func ... > > > > This is seeming like a lot of infrastructure change (I did the read > > version as well) for a single (badly done) API. How about we go with > > is_compat_syscall() for 2.6.13 and revisit the VFS changes after that? > > Please just do the infrastructure change. If we start with hacks > they will never come out again.
The problem with that is that it seems horrible to me to interpret the contents of a buffer being given to write() differently depending on whether it's a 32-bit or a 64-bit task that is writing it. The data format *should* be designed so that it is wordsize-independent (and preferably endian-independent too), or else it should at least be self-describing. Adding this infrastructure is just going to encourage people to do the wrong thing in future. I know we already have the input layer doing the wrong thing, and we need to hack around that, but I think the hack should be as small and self-contained as possible, rather than adding a whole infrastructure to support the brokenness. Regards, Paul.
