Re: [PATCH RFC 1/4] syscalls: Create unified partial table for all archs

On July 24, 2026 1:25:05 PM PDT, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb=2Ede> wrote:
>On Fri, Jul 24, 2026, at 22:18, Andr=C3=A9 Almeida wrote:
>> Em 24/07/2026 17:09, Arnd Bergmann escreveu:
>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026, at 22:00, Andr=C3=A9 Almeida wrote:
>>> It should really be anything starting at 403, not just 442 and higher=
=2E
>>>=20
>>> There are some trivial differences that have crept in over time,
>>> but we should be able to work around those=2E
>>>=20
>>
>> The thing that prevent me starting before 442 was how to deal with=20
>> compat=2E If I add to the table
>>
>> 441	common	epoll_pwait2		sys_epoll_pwait2		compat_sys_epoll_pwait2
>>
>> It will wrongly add
>>
>> __SYSCALL_WITH_COMPAT(441, sys_epoll_pwait2, compat_sys_epoll_pwait2)
>>
>> to arch/x86/include/generated/asm/syscalls_64=2Eh=2E
>>
>> Maybe I could add a --ignore-compat to scripts/syscalltbl=2Esh, and add=
=20
>> this flag for 64 builds=2E What do you think?
>
>IIRC, we can just use compat_sys_epoll_pwait2 for both i386
>and x32, because compat_sigset_t is compatible with sigset_t --
>they are only really different on big-endian targets, which
>count the bits in a u64 different from two u32=2E
>
>This problem also goes away once x32 is gone=2E
>
>      Arnd
>

No reason to introduce another entry point if there's no difference=2E=20

x86, after all, is littleendian and alignment-tolerant=2E