[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a1d=jHPn0CdNYROWffoyxBhj3cmXJpO_Sb10T39zFS+wg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2022 10:14:08 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...nel.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: add loongarch64 port
On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 8:21 AM 王洪亮 <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> 在 2022/3/29 下午4:26, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
> > On Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 10:12 AM 王洪亮 <wanghongliang@...ngson.cn> wrote:
> I do not understand what is old stat() family (pre-statx) ? what is new ?
>
> I compare the system call that related the stat in musl and mainline
> kernel 5.17,
>
> they are consistent.
>
> #define __NR3264_statfs 43 /*sys_statfs*/
> #define __NR3264_fstatfs 44 /*sys_fstatfs*/
> #define __NR3264_fstatat 79 /*sys_newfstatat*/
> #define __NR3264_fstat 80 /*sys_newfstat*/
> #define __NR_statx 291 /*sys_statx*/
> #define __NR_statfs __NR3264_statfs
> #define __NR_fstatfs __NR3264_fstatfs
> #define __NR_newfstatat __NR3264_fstatat
> #define __NR_fstat __NR3264_fstat
The __NR_fstat and __NR_newfstatat symbols are only defined by
the kernel if __ARCH_WANT_NEW_STAT is set, which should not be
by the time the kernel port is merged. Instead, user space should
call statx() here, which continues to be supported as a superset.
The statfs/fstatfs system calls are unrelated and can be used, the proposed
fsinfo() system call that was meant as a replacement has never made
it in
> > For the signal list, the stdint.h header, and the 'struct stat' and
> > 'struct kstat'
> > definitions, I would expect that there is already an architecture-independent
> > definition in musl that you can use, as these should be the same for
> > all new architectures.
>
> I understand the meaning is define signal.h, stdint.h, struct stat and
> struct kstat in generic,
>
> LoongArch use the generic definition.
>
> can we deal with this issue separately ?
>
> 1.LoongArch port based on the existing software framework in musl.
>
> 2.implement the generic definitions in musl, LoongArch use the
>
> architecture-independent definition.
Yes, that works for me, I only care about the ABI issues: we have to
ensure that the kernel interfaces in the upstream musl port are
the same ones that are used in the upstream kernel port, to avoid
breaking applications built on these after everything is upstream.
(We can break compatibility with existing non-upstream user space
for the moment, which is the point of this review).
Any implementation details within musl that do not impact the ABI
can come later. I mainly pointed out these three because I expected
them to already have generic code in musl, given that the kernel does
not require architecture specific definitions for these. If you have custom
definitions, that introduces a certain risk that these correspond to an
earlier private kernel version of yours rather than what will become
the official port.
Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
