Re: X32 project status update
From: H.J. Lu
Date: Sat May 21 2011 - 12:32:49 EST
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 8:34 AM, H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Saturday 21 May 2011 17:01:33 H.J. Lu wrote:
>>> This is the x32 project status update:
>> I've had another look at the kernel patch. It basically
>> looks all good, but the system call table appears to
>> diverge from the x86_64 list for no (documented) reason,
>> in the calls above 302. Is that intentional?
>> I can see why you might want to keep the numbers identical,
>> but if they are already different, why not use the generic
>> system call table from asm-generic/unistd.h for the new
> We can sort it out when we start merging x32 kernel changes.
Peter, is that possible to use the single syscall table for
both x86-64 and x32 system calls? Out of 300+ system
calls, only 84 are different for x86-64 and x32. That
is additional 8*84 == 672 bytes in syscall table.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/