From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
"ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [CORE TOPIC] Dealing with 2038
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 17:19:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUjuiAeyRyeqrF0Lf_iw+qN3r4OaPLR3HtWMZoZXHqT4w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140509223315.GA5725@thin>
Here's a suggestion. I don't know whether it's at all practical.
What if we added a mode in which all structs passed into and out of
the kernel use the 64-bit variant *even for 32-bit code*? Think of it
as the opposite of x32.
This has a big benefit: there's no whole new ABI to maintain. The
downside is that every single use of unsigned long on the uapi side
will have to change to __u64, etc. This might be doable
automatically. Another downside is that some structs may be laid out
differently in the 32-bit C ABI as compared to the 64-bit C ABI, even
given the same primitive type sizes.
Pointers would be tricky. Hmm. Could we get gcc and clang to add
__attribute__((64_bit_layout)) if needed?
--Andy
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-10 0:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-05 18:33 John Stultz
2014-05-05 19:23 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-05 20:53 ` josh
2014-05-05 23:20 ` Andy Lutomirski
2014-05-06 2:12 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-06 2:21 ` Josh Triplett
2014-05-06 12:57 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-05-06 17:53 ` John Stultz
2014-05-06 18:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-05-06 20:19 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-05-06 20:33 ` josh
2014-05-06 20:50 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-05-06 22:06 ` John Stultz
2014-05-07 2:07 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-05-07 11:19 ` Jonathan Corbet
2014-05-07 17:28 ` John Stultz
2014-05-09 15:05 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-05-08 20:37 ` Ben Hutchings
2014-05-09 15:10 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-05-09 20:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-05-09 22:33 ` Josh Triplett
2014-05-10 0:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-10 1:44 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-05-15 12:18 ` Grant Likely
2014-05-15 17:20 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-16 2:50 ` Jason Cooper
2014-05-10 0:19 ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2014-05-06 21:17 ` Daniel Phillips
2014-05-06 21:56 ` Luck, Tony
2014-05-07 1:56 ` Daniel Phillips
2014-05-07 14:00 ` Grant Likely
2014-05-09 17:30 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-05-06 1:25 ` Li Zefan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CALCETrUjuiAeyRyeqrF0Lf_iw+qN3r4OaPLR3HtWMZoZXHqT4w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=john.stultz@linaro.org \
--cc=josh@joshtriplett.org \
--cc=ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox