[PATCHv2 00/24] ILP32 Support in ARM64

[Pinski, Andrew]

> On Jun 17, 2014, at 3:48 AM, "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:19:32PM +0000, Pinski, Andrew wrote:
>>>> On Jun 16, 2014, at 10:08 AM, "Catalin Marinas" <catalin.marinas at arm.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 12:01:55AM -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
>>>> New version of the patches with documentation, signal changes are
>>>> simplified, using less compat syscalls and splitting up the patches so
>>>> it is easier to review.  I have tested LTP on both LP64 and ILP32.
>>>> There is a few LTP failures but they are due to LTP being incorrect
>>>> (sigaction structure in glibc is not the one which is used by the
>>>> kernel)
>>> 
>>> Do you have more details about what's wrong here and where the fix
>>> should go? LTP? glibc? Kernel?
>> 
>> LTP assumes some sigaction structure is the same between userland and kernel.
>> Glibc has the correct idea of what the kernel structure will be when
>> passing to the kernel already. The fix should be done in LTP. There is
>> already code in LTP for x86 for a similar issue which we should be
>> able to advantage of. 
> 
> OK. I guess you are planning to submit the LTP patch at some point (once
> kernel and glibc changes are agreed).
> 
> Any plans for big-endian ILP32?

The support is there already and ltp results are no difference from little-endian. 

> 
>>> I'll give you more specific comments on the code in the next couple of
>>> days. But for cosmetics, please wrap the lines around 72 (or whatever)
>>> characters both in emails, commit logs and Documentation/* files (and
>>> you can drop the "Thanks" part in every commit log ;)).
> 
> I forgot to mention dropping the full stop at the end of every subject.
> 
>> Will do this with the rest of the review. 
> 
> More coding style issues: please have a look at
> Documentation/CodingStyle. While I'm not usually bothered with minor
> aspects, I would like at least some consistency for multi-line comment
> style.
> 
> Also please get the patches through checkpatch.pl (it doesn't need to be
> 100% pass but it gives some clues).

I did run them through checkpatch already. The only warnings left were over 80 column warnings. 


> 
> There are a few #defines you added without corresponding brackets (hpa
> commented on one already).

Checkpatch did not warn about these but I will fix them.

Thanks,
Andrew


> 
> -- 
> Catalin