linux-mips
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 64-bit syscall ABI issue

To: joseph@codesourcery.com
Subject: Re: 64-bit syscall ABI issue
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:25:57 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706042051280.16431@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Original-recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0706042051280.16431@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org
From: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 20:56:57 +0000 (UTC)

[ added linux-arch which is a great place to discuss these
  kinds of issues. ]

> What should the kernel syscall ABI be in such cases (any case where the 
> syscall implementations expect arguments narrower than registers, so 
> mainly 32-bit arguments on 64-bit platforms)?  There are two obvious 
> possibilities:

In general we've taken the stance that the syscall dispatch
should create the proper calling environment for C code
implementing the system calls, and this thus means properly
sign and zero extending the arguments as expected by the C
calling convention.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>