From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin LaHaise Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the aio tree Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:47:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20160204164718.GF16315@kvack.org> References: <20160204131959.6695c7bf@canb.auug.org.au> <20160204134142.GA16315@kvack.org> <20160204135056.GE10826@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160204140822.GB16315@kvack.org> <20160204141253.GF10826@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160204143204.GC16315@kvack.org> <20160204143907.GG10826@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20160204160101.GD16315@kvack.org> <20160204161741.GH10826@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from kanga.kvack.org ([205.233.56.17]:48173 "EHLO kanga.kvack.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932140AbcBDQrT (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:47:19 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160204161741.GH10826@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Stephen Rothwell , Geert Uytterhoeven , Linux-Next , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:17:42PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > That's the easy bit! > > The problem you're going to run into is here: > > #define __get_user_nocheck(x, ptr, size) \ > ({ \ > int __gu_err; \ > unsigned long __gu_val; \ > __uaccess_begin(); \ > __get_user_size(__gu_val, (ptr), (size), __gu_err, -EFAULT); \ > __uaccess_end(); \ > (x) = (__force __typeof__(*(ptr)))__gu_val; \ > > __gu_val will be 32-bit, even when you're wanting a 64-bit quantity. > That's where the fun and games start... You're right -- it's quite non-trivial. How evil would it be to make a separate __get_user64() macro? -ben -- "Thought is the essence of where you are now."