Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:26:42 -0800 (PST) | From | Davide Libenzi <> | Subject | Re: [patch] (2nd try) add epoll compat code to kernel/compat.c ... |
| |
On Tue, 13 Feb 2007, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> A better way here might be to have each 64 bit architecture define > compat_epoll_event in its asm/compat.h and then you can just use: > > if (copy_from_user(&user, event, sizeof(user))) > return -EFAULT; > kernel = compat_alloc_user_space(sizeof(struct epoll_event)); > err |= __put_user(user.events, &kernel->events); > err |= __put_user(user.data, &kernel->data); > > And you shouldn't need the compat routine if > offsetof(struct compat_epoll_event, data) == offsetof(struct epoll_event, data).
That is *definitely* better, because at that point you can make them also define a NEED_COMPAT_EPOLL_{CTL,WAIT}, and that code can be excluded altogether if not needed. I simply wanted to reduce work for arch maintainers, but I'm all for something like the above.
> OK, I have thought about this some more and I *think* the only > architecture that needs compat_sys_epoll_ctl or compat_sys_epoll_wait is > ia64 where the 64 bit version of struct epoll_event is different from the > 32 bit version. On x86_64, the struct is explictly packed (so it is the > same as the 32 bit version) and on all the other 64 bit architectures the > alignment of the u64 is the same as the equivalent 32 bit version. > > Since ia64 already has its own version of these two, we only have to > worry about epoll_pwait and then the struct epoll_event is only a problem > for ia64. > > Am I right? (I have cc'd linux-arch for guidance.)
ARM-OABI also defines them, dunno why. Rmk?
- Davide
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |