Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-04-02 Thread Paul Moore
On Monday, March 25, 2013 04:55:17 PM Paul Moore wrote: > On Friday, March 15, 2013 03:18:12 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > On 03/15/2013 02:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > > >> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: > > >>> On

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-04-02 Thread Paul Moore
On Monday, March 25, 2013 04:55:17 PM Paul Moore wrote: On Friday, March 15, 2013 03:18:12 PM H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote: On 03/15/2013 02:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote: On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: On

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-03-25 Thread Paul Moore
On Friday, March 15, 2013 03:18:12 PM H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 03/15/2013 02:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > >> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: > >>> On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote: >

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-03-25 Thread Paul Moore
On Friday, March 15, 2013 03:18:12 PM H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote: On 03/15/2013 02:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote: On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote:

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-03-15 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 03/15/2013 02:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote: >> On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: >>> On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote: Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-03-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 03/15/2013 02:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: >> On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote: >>> Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 >>> implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-03-15 Thread Paul Moore
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: > On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote: > > Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 > > implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that > > could be applied to x32

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-03-15 Thread Paul Moore
On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote: Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that could be applied to x32 syscalls

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-03-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 03/15/2013 02:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote: On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote: Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000,

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-03-15 Thread H.J. Lu
On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 2:56 PM, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote: On 03/15/2013 02:15 PM, Paul Moore wrote: On Tuesday, February 26, 2013 03:58:23 PM Paul Moore wrote: On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote: Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-02-26 Thread Paul Moore
On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote: > Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 > implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that > could be applied to x32 syscalls such that the masked syscall number > would be the same as a

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-02-26 Thread Paul Moore
On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:21:43 PM Paul Moore wrote: Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that could be applied to x32 syscalls such that the masked syscall number would be the same as a

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-02-15 Thread Paul Moore
On Friday, February 15, 2013 11:02:49 AM H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 02/15/2013 09:21 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > > Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 > > implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that > > could be applied to x32 syscalls such

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-02-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 02/15/2013 09:21 AM, Paul Moore wrote: > Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 > implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that > could be applied to x32 syscalls such that the masked syscall number > would be the same as a x86_64 syscall.

[PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-02-15 Thread Paul Moore
Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that could be applied to x32 syscalls such that the masked syscall number would be the same as a x86_64 syscall. While that patch was a nice way to simplify the

[PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-02-15 Thread Paul Moore
Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that could be applied to x32 syscalls such that the masked syscall number would be the same as a x86_64 syscall. While that patch was a nice way to simplify the

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-02-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 02/15/2013 09:21 AM, Paul Moore wrote: Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that could be applied to x32 syscalls such that the masked syscall number would be the same as a x86_64 syscall.

Re: [PATCH] x86: remove the x32 syscall bitmask from syscall_get_nr()

2013-02-15 Thread Paul Moore
On Friday, February 15, 2013 11:02:49 AM H. Peter Anvin wrote: On 02/15/2013 09:21 AM, Paul Moore wrote: Commit fca460f95e928bae373daa8295877b6905bc62b8 simplified the x32 implementation by creating a syscall bitmask, equal to 0x4000, that could be applied to x32 syscalls such that the