kern/155903: FreeBSD32 emulation patch to support i386 X11 Server

[Mark Linimon]

The following reply was made to PR kern/155903; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Mark Linimon <linimon at lonesome.com>
To: bug-followup at FreeBSD.org
Cc:  
Subject: Re: kern/155903: FreeBSD32 emulation patch to support i386 X11
 Server
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 14:27:55 -0500

 ----- Forwarded message from Kostik Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com> -----
 
 Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2011 23:48:57 +0200
 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel at gmail.com>
 To: John Wehle <john at feith.com>
 Cc: amd64 at freebsd.org
 Subject: Re: amd64/155903: FreeBSD32 emulation patch to support i386 X11
 	Server
 User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
 
 On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 05:26:08PM -0400, John Wehle wrote:
 > > First, please split the patch into smaller, logically self-contained
 > > parts. E.g. the change to handle fdrop() in one place should be committed
 > > separately.
 > 
 > Will do.  Okay to just submit the series of patches under amd64/155903
 > or do you want them file under separate bug reports?
 Simply mail the patches to me, with some words attached.
 I will land them into the tree.
 
 > 
 > > The last commit is the most controversial, in fact. I understand the
 > > reason to get the user memory for calling into pciconf ioctls, but this
 > > is somewhat ugly. Ideally, the pci_ioctl() would be changed into wrapper
 > > and core code, and two wrappers produced, one for the native call path,
 > > other for compat32.
 > 
 > I don't necessarily disagree, however that's more work than I'm planning on
 > at the moment.
 Sigh.
 
 > 
 > > BTW, would you do the shims for other pciconf ioctls, while there ?
 > 
 > I would have if necesary (since I was there).  However at a quick glance
 > of pciio.h it didn't appear to me to be necessary.  Also I do suspect
 > that the i386 X11 Server is making successfuly use of some of the other
 > calls.
 > 
 > Keep in mind that the freebsd32 layer has generic handling for those
 > ioctl calls that don't require anything special.  I believe PCIOCREAD,
 > PCIOCWRITE, and friends fall into that category since it appears the
 > structures don't change size or alignment between i386 and amd64
 > (mind you this was based just on a quick glance at the header).
 This is good answer, I wanted to make sure that ioctls that
 need special handling are handled.
 
 Thanks.
 
 ----- End forwarded message -----