Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-15 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 09/14/2015 06:35 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> >> I missed sys_ipc entirely. >> >> Ingo, Thomas, want to just wire those up, too? I can send a patch >> next week, but it'll be as trivial as the socket one. > > Yeah, sure - split out system calls are so much better (and slightly faster) > than >

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-14 Thread Ingo Molnar
* Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Friday 11 September 2015 11:54:50 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> To make sure I don't miss any (it seems I missed recvmmsg and sendmmsg for > >> the socketcall case,

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-11 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 September 2015 11:54:50 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: >> To make sure I don't miss any (it seems I missed recvmmsg and sendmmsg for >> the socketcall case, sigh), this is the list of ipc syscalls to implement? >> >>

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-11 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Friday 11 September 2015 10:24:29 Heiko Carstens wrote: >> >> FWIW, the s390 approach (ignoring the "new" system calls) is only >> temporarily. >> I'll enable the seperate calls later when I have time to test everything,

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-11 Thread Heiko Carstens
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 02:53:12PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Wednesday 02 September 2015 13:16:19 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > On 09/02/2015 02:48 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > > > Should all other architectures follow suit? > > > Or should we follow the s390 approach: > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-11 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Friday 11 September 2015 10:24:29 Heiko Carstens wrote: > > FWIW, the s390 approach (ignoring the "new" system calls) is only temporarily. > I'll enable the seperate calls later when I have time to test everything, > especially the glibc stuff. Ok, thanks for clarifying. > The same is true

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-11 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Friday 11 September 2015 11:54:50 Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > To make sure I don't miss any (it seems I missed recvmmsg and sendmmsg for > the socketcall case, sigh), this is the list of ipc syscalls to implement? > > sys_msgget > sys_msgctl > sys_msgrcv > sys_msgsnd >

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-07 Thread Arnd Bergmann
On Wednesday 02 September 2015 13:16:19 H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 09/02/2015 02:48 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > Should all other architectures follow suit? > > Or should we follow the s390 approach: > > > > It is up to the maintainer(s), largely dependent on how likely you are > going

RE: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-03 Thread David Laight
From: Peter Anvin > Sent: 02 September 2015 21:16 > On 09/02/2015 02:48 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > > > Should all other architectures follow suit? > > Or should we follow the s390 approach: > > > > It is up to the maintainer(s), largely dependent on how likely you are > going to want to

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-02 Thread H. Peter Anvin
On 09/02/2015 02:48 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > Should all other architectures follow suit? > Or should we follow the s390 approach: > It is up to the maintainer(s), largely dependent on how likely you are going to want to support this in your libc, but in general, socketcall is an

Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls

2015-09-02 Thread Geert Uytterhoeven
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On x86_64, there's no socketcall syscall; instead all of the socket > calls are real syscalls. For 32-bit programs, we're stuck offering > the socketcall syscall, but it would be nice to expose the direct > calls as