On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 6:04 PM Mark Rutland wrote:
> > The patch proposed by
> > Ryan is based on the kernel patch used by Tango which can be found
> > here: https://github.com/Amanieu/linux/tree/tango-v5.4
> >
> > Efficiency is not the concern here: copying/rearranging some bytes is
> > tiny
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 04:24:35PM +, Amanieu d'Antras wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 1:28 PM Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > The only downside I think is that for some syscalls it's not that
> > efficient. Those using struct iovec come to mind, qemu probably
> > duplicates the user
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 1:28 PM Catalin Marinas wrote:
> The only downside I think is that for some syscalls it's not that
> efficient. Those using struct iovec come to mind, qemu probably
> duplicates the user structures, having to copy them in both directions
> (well, the kernel compat layer
> > Any user space adaption layer would have to know which actual
> > driver has been opened and what internal structures it has.
> > Getting that right is hard and difficult.
> > The recent changes to move (IIRC) sockopt compatibility down
> > into the protocol code found quite a few places where
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 02:12:02PM +, David Laight wrote:
> From: Catalin Marinas
> > Sent: 12 February 2021 13:28
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:35:15PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:30:41AM +, Steven Price wrote:
> > > > On 11/02/2021 20:21,
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 12:21:54PM -0800, sonicadvan...@gmail.com wrote:
> From: Ryan Houdek
>
> Sorry about the noise. I obviously don't work in this ecosystem.
> Didn't get any comments previously so I'm resending
>
> The problem:
> We need to support 32-bit processes running under a
From: Catalin Marinas
> Sent: 12 February 2021 13:28
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:35:15PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:30:41AM +, Steven Price wrote:
> > > On 11/02/2021 20:21, sonicadvan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Why do we need compatibility layers?
> > > >
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:33 PM Steven Price wrote:
> On 11/02/2021 20:21, sonicadvan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The problem:
> > We need to support 32-bit processes running under a userspace
> > compatibility layer. The compatibility layer is a AArch64 process.
> > This means exposing the 32bit
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:35:15PM +, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:30:41AM +, Steven Price wrote:
> > On 11/02/2021 20:21, sonicadvan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Why do we need compatibility layers?
> > > There are ARMv8 CPUs that only support AArch64 but still need to run
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:30:41AM +, Steven Price wrote:
> On 11/02/2021 20:21, sonicadvan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why do we need compatibility layers?
> > There are ARMv8 CPUs that only support AArch64 but still need to run
> > AArch32 applications.
> > Cortex-A34/R82 and other cores are
On 11/02/2021 20:21, sonicadvan...@gmail.com wrote:
From: Ryan Houdek
Sorry about the noise. I obviously don't work in this ecosystem.
Didn't get any comments previously so I'm resending
We're just coming up to a merge window, so I expect people are fairly
busy at the moment. Also from a
11 matches
Mail list logo
