linux:sys_ipc syscall

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

linux:sys_ipc syscall

Michal Simek-4
Hi All,

I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc syscalls.
I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate syscall like
sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
sys_shmget.

I look at http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git and I haven't seen it there.

Thanks for your comments,
Michal

P.S.: I am not in list - please cc me.

--
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

Mike Frysinger
On Monday 04 May 2009 10:05:51 Michal Simek wrote:
> I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc syscalls.
> I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate syscall like
> sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
> sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
> sys_shmget.

sorry, but what's the question exactly ?
-mike

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

dtbartle
On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Mike Frysinger <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Monday 04 May 2009 10:05:51 Michal Simek wrote:
>> I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc syscalls.
>> I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate syscall like
>> sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
>> sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
>> sys_shmget.
>
> sorry, but what's the question exactly ?

I think he wants to know why glibc on Linux uses SYS_ipc to implement
msgctl, etc... rather than SYS_msgctl, etc...

-- David
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

Michal Simek-4
In reply to this post by Mike Frysinger
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 04 May 2009 10:05:51 Michal Simek wrote:
>> I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc syscalls.
>> I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate syscall like
>> sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
>> sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
>> sys_shmget.
>
> sorry, but what's the question exactly ?

The question was if glibc supports separate ipc syscalls instead of calling sys_ipc.

I look at implementation and for example at sysdeps / unix / sysv / linux / msgctl.c
You can see that for __new_msgctl function is called kernel syscall sys_ipc

 return INLINE_SYSCALL (ipc, 5, IPCOP_msgctl, msqid, cmd, 0, CHECK_1 (buf));

but is possible to call directly sys_msgctl - for blackfin case syscall 334.

And second part of my question was if someone work on it.

Michal





> -mike


--
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

Michal Simek-4
In reply to this post by dtbartle
David Bartley wrote:

> On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 11:06 AM, Mike Frysinger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Monday 04 May 2009 10:05:51 Michal Simek wrote:
>>> I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc syscalls.
>>> I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate syscall like
>>> sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
>>> sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
>>> sys_shmget.
>> sorry, but what's the question exactly ?
>
> I think he wants to know why glibc on Linux uses SYS_ipc to implement
> msgctl, etc... rather than SYS_msgctl, etc...

I don't want to know why is used sys_ipc rather than sys_msgctl.
I think there were some historical reasons for that.

But I wanted to know if someone have patches on it because I would like to
remove sys_ipc from Microblaze syscall table and of course sys_ipc implementation.
For that I need to have support for separate ipc syscalls in glibc.

Michal

>
> -- David


--
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
w: www.monstr.eu p: +42-0-721842854
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

Roland McGrath
In reply to this post by Michal Simek-4
Other existing machines have individual syscalls.  See e.g.

sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/ia64/syscalls.list
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/x86_64/syscalls.list
sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/s390-64/syscalls.list

Calls defined there override sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/foo.c implementations.


Thanks,
Roland
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

KOSAKI Motohiro
In reply to this post by Michal Simek-4
Hi

> Hi All,
>
> I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc syscalls.
> I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate syscall like
> sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
> sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
> sys_shmget.
>
> I look at http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git and I haven't seen it there.

May I ask the benfit of this change?
In general, unnecessally ABI change cause very large end-user confusion.

thanks.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 06 May 2009 20:13:16 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc
> > syscalls. I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate
> > syscall like sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
> > sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
> > sys_shmget.
> >
> > I look at http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git and I haven't seen it there.
>
> May I ask the benfit of this change?
> In general, unnecessally ABI change cause very large end-user confusion.
the ABI change is between C library and kernel.  there is no end-user
difference.
-mike

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

KOSAKI Motohiro
> On Wednesday 06 May 2009 20:13:16 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc
> > > syscalls. I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate
> > > syscall like sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
> > > sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
> > > sys_shmget.
> > >
> > > I look at http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git and I haven't seen it there.
> >
> > May I ask the benfit of this change?
> > In general, unnecessally ABI change cause very large end-user confusion.
>
> the ABI change is between C library and kernel.  there is no end-user
> difference.

you assume end-user install newer kernel and glibc at the same time.
but it isn't gurantee.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 06 May 2009 20:29:03 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> > On Wednesday 06 May 2009 20:13:16 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc
> > > > syscalls. I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate
> > > > syscall like sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
> > > > sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
> > > > sys_shmget.
> > > >
> > > > I look at http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git and I haven't seen it there.
> > >
> > > May I ask the benfit of this change?
> > > In general, unnecessally ABI change cause very large end-user
> > > confusion.
> >
> > the ABI change is between C library and kernel.  there is no end-user
> > difference.
>
> you assume end-user install newer kernel and glibc at the same time.
> but it isn't gurantee.
he isnt talking about adding funcs to a port that didnt already have them.  
he's asking how to use the split version of IPC rather than the multi subcall.
-mike

signature.asc (853 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: linux:sys_ipc syscall

KOSAKI Motohiro
> On Wednesday 06 May 2009 20:29:03 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 06 May 2009 20:13:16 KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > > > I would like to ask you if someone from you work on separate ipc
> > > > > syscalls. I mean that all code call one sys_ipc syscall not separate
> > > > > syscall like sys_semctl, sys_semget, sys_semop, sys_msgctl,
> > > > > sys_msgget, sys_msgrcv, sys_msgsnd, sys_shmat, sys_shmctl, sys_shmdt,
> > > > > sys_shmget.
> > > > >
> > > > > I look at http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git and I haven't seen it there.
> > > >
> > > > May I ask the benfit of this change?
> > > > In general, unnecessally ABI change cause very large end-user
> > > > confusion.
> > >
> > > the ABI change is between C library and kernel.  there is no end-user
> > > difference.
> >
> > you assume end-user install newer kernel and glibc at the same time.
> > but it isn't gurantee.
>
> he isnt talking about adding funcs to a port that didnt already have them.  
> he's asking how to use the split version of IPC rather than the multi subcall.
> -mike

Ah, I see.
sorry, I was confused.