Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] ARC: Support syscall ABI v4" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.7-stable tree?

2016-09-09 Thread Vineet Gupta
On 09/09/2016 04:39 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> On 09/06/2016 11:28 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:28:45PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: On 09/06/2016 01:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> Not "we ne

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] ARC: Support syscall ABI v4" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.7-stable tree?

2016-09-09 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:38:25AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 09/06/2016 11:28 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:28:45PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: > >> On 09/06/2016 01:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > Not "we need to support gcc6 for > old kernels", as really

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] ARC: Support syscall ABI v4" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.7-stable tree?

2016-09-07 Thread Vineet Gupta
On 09/06/2016 11:28 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:28:45PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> On 09/06/2016 01:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: Not "we need to support gcc6 for old kernels", as really, if someone wants to update userspace, they don't update their ker

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] ARC: Support syscall ABI v4" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.7-stable tree?

2016-09-06 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 01:28:45PM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: > On 09/06/2016 01:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > > > Not "we need to support gcc6 for > > > old kernels", as really, if someone wants to update userspace, they > > > don't update their kernel? > > FWIW, I'm not arguing for the backport i

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] ARC: Support syscall ABI v4" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.7-stable tree?

2016-09-06 Thread Vineet Gupta
On 09/06/2016 01:22 PM, Vineet Gupta wrote: > > Not "we need to support gcc6 for > > old kernels", as really, if someone wants to update userspace, they > > don't update their kernel? FWIW, I'm not arguing for the backport inclusion - I'm just trying to explain the context more. Thing is your re

Re: WTF: patch "[PATCH] ARC: Support syscall ABI v4" was seriously submitted to be applied to the 4.7-stable tree?

2016-09-06 Thread Vineet Gupta
On 09/06/2016 12:39 PM, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: > On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 09:50:46AM -0700, Vineet Gupta wrote: >> On 09/05/2016 06:03 AM, gre...@linuxfoundation.org wrote: >>> The patch below was submitted to be applied to the 4.7-stable tree. >>> >>> I fail to see how this patch meets t

[PATCH] ARC: Support syscall ABI v4

2016-08-16 Thread Vineet Gupta
The syscall ABI includes the gcc functional calling ABI since a syscall implies userland caller and kernel callee. The current gcc ABI (v3) for ARCv2 ISA required 64-bit data be passed in even-odd register pairs, (potentially punching reg holes when passing such values as args). This was partly dr