In message: <20100322185331.GA88847_at_dragon.NUXI.org> "David O'Brien" <obrien_at_freebsd.org> writes: : On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:50:32PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: : > : On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 07:24:23PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: : > So the issue isn't as cut and dried as you might think. There's : > multiple different conventions used here in addition to your simple : > example. : : I guess we'd have to take a poll to find out. Seems pretty cut and dried : to me. COMPAT_FREEBSDn has an established context that does not match : this new usage. That is - same bit'ness, compatibility with an older : FreeBSD API for the same architecture. All the other COMPAT_* are for : foreign ABI compatibility. COMPAT_LINUX32 possibly should have been : "COMPAT_LINUX_X86_64". (or is it MI and is usable as-is for PowerPC : and MIPS? I haven't looked that deeply at the code.) no, COMPAT_LINUX32 is the right name. While we don't have PowerPC or MIPS linux emulation bits in the kernel, the code if for dealing with running 32-bit binaries on 64-bit machines. There may be a little leakage of x86 specific goo here, but not a lot. WarnerReceived on Mon Mar 22 2010 - 18:08:55 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:02 UTC