On Mon, 25 Jun 2007, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 12:09 +0100, Russell King wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:35:35AM -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 02:11:45AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > ABI. How would you like "it would be nice if maintainers of oddball
> > > > architectures would pay attention"?
> > >
> > > If new syscalls got posted to linux-arch for discussion, I assure you,
> > > we'd pay attention.
> >
> > Ditto. sys_sync_file_range() wasn't, so I think David's sentiment is
> > bang on.
> >
> > And as David says, we've _finally_ been round the discussion loop with
> > fallocate, so in theory we now know what the issues are, and we _all_
> > have a good idea how to deal with argument ordering to satisfy the
> > majority. That should mean that subsequent discussion be shorter.
>
> Well, those who were paying attention might. We should probably add
> Documentation/new-syscalls.txt with such information as...
>
> ---
>
> Never add any system call without considering how its prototype works
> for all architectures and for 32-bit userspace on 64-bit kernels.
>
> - Some architectures have a limit of 6 (32-bit) argument slots.
> - Some architectures must align 64-bit integers into an aligned
> pair of registers. A slot may be wasted for padding.
> - S390 may not have a 64-bit integer in slots 5/6.
>
> Where you invent a data structure for communication with userspace, be
> aware of the following:
>
> - Try to ensure your data structure will be identical for 32-bit and
> 64-bit builds, if possible. That way, you avoid the need to implement
> compatibility routines for 32-bit userspace on 64-bit kernels. In
> particular, avoid the 'long' data type. Try to use explicitly sized
> types such as 'uint64_t' instead.
> - Most architectures align 64-bit integers to 8 bytes, but i386 doesn't.
> If you have to implement 32-bit compatibility, make sure you get this
> right. Preferably, avoid the problem by ensuring that your 64-bit
> integers are naturally placed with 8-byte alignment even without
> padding.
Add: patches adding syscalls should be CCed to linux-arch (or does this
expose our precious email address to spammers?)
> > At least now, if they don't, provided we build every -rc kernel as it's
> > released, we can detect when new syscalls are added quickly and give
> > those submitters a suitable roasting at gas mark 95.
>
> Linus should be refusing any new system call which doesn't at _least_
> handle the 32/64 compatibility issues. Explictly stating that it doesn't
> need compatibility wrappers would be OK, as long as it's true -- but
> just saying _nothing_ about it is bad.
And can we let checkpatch emit a warning for newly added syscalls?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
