| Message ID | 1588692280-15878-3-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | syscall.2: Minor register name fixes for arm/arm64 | expand |
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:24:40PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > arm64 is currently documented as receiving the syscall number in > x8. > > While this is the correct register, the syscall number is a 32-bit > integer. Bits [63:32] are ignored by the kernel. > > So it is more correct to say "w8". > > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> > --- > man2/syscall.2 | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/man2/syscall.2 b/man2/syscall.2 > index 53ab40e..d724651 100644 > --- a/man2/syscall.2 > +++ b/man2/syscall.2 > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ alpha callsys v0 v0 a4 a3 1, 6 > arc trap0 r8 r0 - - > arm/OABI swi NR - r0 - - 2 > arm/EABI swi 0x0 r7 r0 r1 - > -arm64 svc #0 x8 x0 x1 - > +arm64 svc #0 w8 x0 x1 - Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Will
On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:54:57PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, May 05, 2020 at 04:24:40PM +0100, Dave Martin wrote: > > arm64 is currently documented as receiving the syscall number in > > x8. > > > > While this is the correct register, the syscall number is a 32-bit > > integer. Bits [63:32] are ignored by the kernel. > > > > So it is more correct to say "w8". > > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> > > --- > > man2/syscall.2 | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/man2/syscall.2 b/man2/syscall.2 > > index 53ab40e..d724651 100644 > > --- a/man2/syscall.2 > > +++ b/man2/syscall.2 > > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ alpha callsys v0 v0 a4 a3 1, 6 > > arc trap0 r8 r0 - - > > arm/OABI swi NR - r0 - - 2 > > arm/EABI swi 0x0 r7 r0 r1 - > > -arm64 svc #0 x8 x0 x1 - > > +arm64 svc #0 w8 x0 x1 - > > Acked-by: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> Thanks! ---Dave
On 5/5/20 5:24 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > arm64 is currently documented as receiving the syscall number in > x8. > > While this is the correct register, the syscall number is a 32-bit > integer. Bits [63:32] are ignored by the kernel. > > So it is more correct to say "w8". Thanks, Dave. Patch applied, with Will's Acked-by. Cheers, Michael > Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> > --- > man2/syscall.2 | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/man2/syscall.2 b/man2/syscall.2 > index 53ab40e..d724651 100644 > --- a/man2/syscall.2 > +++ b/man2/syscall.2 > @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ alpha callsys v0 v0 a4 a3 1, 6 > arc trap0 r8 r0 - - > arm/OABI swi NR - r0 - - 2 > arm/EABI swi 0x0 r7 r0 r1 - > -arm64 svc #0 x8 x0 x1 - > +arm64 svc #0 w8 x0 x1 - > blackfin excpt 0x0 P0 R0 - - > i386 int $0x80 eax eax edx - > ia64 break 0x100000 r15 r8 r9 r10 1, 6 >
On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:16:07PM +0200, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote: > On 5/5/20 5:24 PM, Dave Martin wrote: > > arm64 is currently documented as receiving the syscall number in > > x8. > > > > While this is the correct register, the syscall number is a 32-bit > > integer. Bits [63:32] are ignored by the kernel. > > > > So it is more correct to say "w8". > > Thanks, Dave. Patch applied, with Will's Acked-by. > > Cheers, > > Michael Thanks! ---Dave
diff --git a/man2/syscall.2 b/man2/syscall.2 index 53ab40e..d724651 100644 --- a/man2/syscall.2 +++ b/man2/syscall.2 @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ alpha callsys v0 v0 a4 a3 1, 6 arc trap0 r8 r0 - - arm/OABI swi NR - r0 - - 2 arm/EABI swi 0x0 r7 r0 r1 - -arm64 svc #0 x8 x0 x1 - +arm64 svc #0 w8 x0 x1 - blackfin excpt 0x0 P0 R0 - - i386 int $0x80 eax eax edx - ia64 break 0x100000 r15 r8 r9 r10 1, 6
arm64 is currently documented as receiving the syscall number in x8. While this is the correct register, the syscall number is a 32-bit integer. Bits [63:32] are ignored by the kernel. So it is more correct to say "w8". Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> --- man2/syscall.2 | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)