From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,
	RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 7457 invoked from network); 19 May 2021 07:55:28 -0000
Received: from mother.openwall.net (195.42.179.200)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 19 May 2021 07:55:28 -0000
Received: (qmail 3275 invoked by uid 550); 19 May 2021 07:55:26 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-ID: <musl.lists.openwall.com>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Received: (qmail 3257 invoked from network); 19 May 2021 07:55:26 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org;
	s=k20201202; t=1621410913;
	bh=/qkyxuYncekAuB74XnQYKTcSfJNc+Sat1axGbWpBkNE=;
	h=References:In-Reply-To:From:Date:Subject:To:Cc:From;
	b=K6DRbS2j5Hru3l8HsBmIVfEm51mrqm95pS6Kr7ArhjeIMdM1yf8k0bYFQWBwCG0ll
	 MfWxbtw9kdtWlifm1NIrCmiVG0AYmF3hhzvP2IIpKoCsKhdUPqchlYAyEzmJa7EeKo
	 cSO2Lx8K3GNxL81sWUEmoAKTW5o+1Q9OppXCb/eAkkzbfwhbxdvTKTVkC3s3GQAzqm
	 Fy2MgA8hNzLduQottbFn53i+BUarqI8jfPcs9BaVvmPz1aAXkuWDROJnU/Dzkmplso
	 aLiF394O567aiDPc9KZfOPqBH/pnk6xQly3OLoG8lDSSHv/NE6yzpkN6GSTfjmUAKH
	 tj/CTXFpgELjQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531zH+XWx1uhGnb5dp/zdSnVTfmXvgeuvvOMAMQsjupEaSVYHkEy
	6YnSyYxyEuSuxXU8aSyuP3goichCeNsUZ5tCCAE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyyaUlrryLJ1ouRFfSwvKyJrLZjZsUmgrI1dx65WWH6dja9hq8P13aMB8LBftGjziEBR9dhsUjlgbQrkrnB8vs=
X-Received: by 2002:a5d:6dc4:: with SMTP id d4mr13199418wrz.105.1621410912518;
 Wed, 19 May 2021 00:55:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210519073403.2213823-1-raj.khem@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210519073403.2213823-1-raj.khem@gmail.com>
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 09:54:00 +0200
X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: <CAK8P3a230KeMivr4fCsB-tyLWykXEOagcUex5Rc7JE64O=OCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a230KeMivr4fCsB-tyLWykXEOagcUex5Rc7JE64O=OCXQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Cc: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>, zabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [musl] [PATCH] riscv: Rename __NR_fstatat __NR_newfstatat

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 9:34 AM Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> on riscv64 this syscall is called __NR_newfstatat
> this helps the name match kernel UAPI for external
> programs
>
> Signed-off-by: Khem Raj <raj.khem@gmail.com>
> Cc: zabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>

This looks correct to me. Unfortunately the kernel's definitions for the stat
family are inconsistent in a lot of different ways, and the naming between
fstat and newfstatat is just one more instance of this. In theory, the 'new'
macros refer to the kernel's "struct stat", while the non-prefixed ones
refer to the syscalls taking "struct __kernel_old_stat".

Comparing the riscv64 file to the aarch64 version shows that the aarch64
version matches what the kernel defines, no idea why the riscv64 version
is different.

       Arnd