This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Ping: ILP32 on aarch64 patches
- From: Yury Norov <ynorov at caviumnetworks dot com>
- To: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz at port70 dot net>
- Cc: Steve Ellcey <sellcey at caviumnetworks dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, <carlos at redhat dot com>, Catalin Marinas <catalin dot marinas at arm dot com>, Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim dot kuvyrkov at linaro dot org>, Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gmail dot com>, Arnd Bergman <arnd at arndb dot de>, Bamvor Zhangjian <bamvor dot zhangjian at huawei dot com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2017 03:50:06 +0530
- Subject: Re: Ping: ILP32 on aarch64 patches
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Yuri dot Norov at caviumnetworks dot com;
- References: <1482949070.2445.4.camel@caviumnetworks.com> <20161228220753.GC6695@port70.net>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
Hi, Szabolcs
[Add Arnd, Catalin, Maxim, Bamvor and Andrew]
On Wed, Dec 28, 2016 at 11:07:53PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Steve Ellcey <sellcey@caviumnetworks.com> [2016-12-28 10:17:50 -0800]:
> > I would still like to check in ILP32 support for aarch64 before the
> > code freeze deadline. I haven't gotten any objections to the last
> > two patches that I submitted:
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-12/msg00744.html
> > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2016-12/msg00778.html
> >
> > Can I check these in? Cc'ing the aarch64 machine maintainer and the
> > release manager.
>
> the aarch64 maintainer is Marcus Shawcroft
>
> these patches contain kernel abi details which should
> ideally be tested and acked by linux devs as described in
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/5/333
>
> so only merge after both glibc and linux are ok with the abi.
> (i think glibc is ok with the abi, but the linux maintainers
> haven't finished review and testing yet.)
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/10/21/883
This is last kernel patches in LKML, and you can find there links on
discussions on previous submissions. ABI takes major part of discussion,
and now after many reworks it is looking stable. At least Arnd Bergman
and Catalin Marinas agree with current ABI.
The rest of Catalin's list is here:
> `1. Complete the review of the Linux patches and ABI (no merge yet)
Soon, I'll update kernel submission on top of current linux-next. No ABI
changes expected.
> `2. Review the corresponding glibc patches (no merge yet)
Doing right here
> `3. Ask (Linaro, Cavium) for toolchain + filesystem (pre-built and more
> ` than just busybox) to be able to reproduce the testing in ARM
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/12/11/45
> `4. More testing (LTP, trinity, performance regressions etc.)
Performance, LTP, trinity and glibc testsuites are ran, and
some regressions found comparing to lp64, but nothing critical
there. For example, LTP shows ~5 extra fails, and most of them
are due to weird fail of mkfs tool, which is called in that
tests. Trinity is OK to me, and performance in lp64 is looking
the same - some tests little faster, some little slower, all in
5% range.
> `5. Move the ILP32 PCS out of beta (based on the results from 4)
Current kernel submission is RFC only because we have choice how to
clear top halves of input registers. It also affects ABI a little.
Next submission will not be RFC because current approach here is for
more than half a year, and no critical objections found till now.
> `6. Check the market again to see if anyone still needs ILP32
Cavium, Huawei and Linaro wait for it. Do we need more?
> `7. Based on 6, decide whether to merge the kernel and glibc
> ` patche
-----
Is all I wrote above correct from glibc and kernel maintainers point
of view? Is there anything else to check for ILP32 to continue with
taking it into upstream?
Arnd? Catalin?
Yury