This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls
- From: Heiko Carstens <heiko dot carstens at de dot ibm dot com>
- To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd at arndb dot de>
- Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa at zytor dot com>, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert at linux-m68k dot org>, Andy Lutomirski <luto at kernel dot org>, X86 ML <x86 at kernel dot org>, Network Development <netdev at vger dot kernel dot org>, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto at amacapital dot net>, "linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org" <linux-kernel at vger dot kernel dot org>, Alexander Larsson <alexl at redhat dot com>, Cosimo Cecchi <cosimo at endlessm dot com>, Dan Nicholson <nicholson at endlessm dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>, Rajalakshmi Srinivasaraghavan <raji at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Linux-Arch <linux-arch at vger dot kernel dot org>
- Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:24:29 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Wire up 32-bit direct socket calls
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <cb5138299d37d5800e2d135b01a7667fa6115854 dot 1436912629 dot git dot luto at kernel dot org> <CAMuHMdXKA_+JY2ryf-yoJxQnbW=jsOjj_w2-Nsybpx0310neDA at mail dot gmail dot com> <55E75913 dot 5050605 at zytor dot com> <3193269 dot 4TGcgnGPrm at wuerfel>
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:
> > >
> >
> > 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 abomination which there is no reason not to bypass.
> >
> > So follow suit unless you have a strong reason not to.
>
> +1
>
> In my y2038 syscall series, I'm adding a new recvmmsg64 call, and
> we may decide to add new setsockopt/getsockopt variants as well.
> This is probably not the last change to socketcall, and it would
> be made much easier if all architectures had separate calls here.
>
> It seems that there are very few architectures that don't already have
> the separate calls:
>
> $ git grep -l __NR_socketcall arch/*/include/uapi | xargs git grep -L recvmsg
> arch/cris/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> arch/frv/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> arch/m32r/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> arch/m68k/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> arch/mn10300/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
>
> These are of course all examples of architectures that originally followed
> the i386 syscall scheme closely rather than trying to leave out obsolete
> calls.
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.
The same is true for the ipc system call. (any reason why the seperate system
calls haven't been enabled on x86 now as well?)