From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60435C433B4 for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 11:41:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1224160E0B for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 11:41:30 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 1224160E0B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=altlinux.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Fm79h4N11z309K for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:41:28 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=altlinux.org (client-ip=194.107.17.57; helo=vmicros1.altlinux.org; envelope-from=ldv@altlinux.org; receiver=) Received: from vmicros1.altlinux.org (vmicros1.altlinux.org [194.107.17.57]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4Fm79G5Rdpz2yXs for ; Thu, 20 May 2021 21:41:06 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mua.local.altlinux.org (mua.local.altlinux.org [192.168.1.14]) by vmicros1.altlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2CC272C8B8; Thu, 20 May 2021 14:41:04 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mua.local.altlinux.org (Postfix, from userid 508) id 8D1727CC8A6; Thu, 20 May 2021 14:41:04 +0300 (MSK) Date: Thu, 20 May 2021 14:41:04 +0300 From: "Dmitry V. Levin" To: Nicholas Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] powerpc/64s/syscall: Use pt_regs.trap to distinguish syscall ABI difference between sc and scv syscalls Message-ID: <20210520114104.GB1198@altlinux.org> References: <20210520111931.2597127-1-npiggin@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210520111931.2597127-1-npiggin@gmail.com> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On Thu, May 20, 2021 at 09:19:30PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > The sc and scv 0 system calls have different ABI conventions, and > ptracers need to know which system call type is being used if it wants > to look at the syscall registers. typo: s/if it wants/if they want/ > Document that pt_regs.trap can be used for this, and fix one in-tree user > to work with scv 0 syscalls. > > Fixes: 7fa95f9adaee ("powerpc/64s: system call support for scv/rfscv instructions") > Reported-by: "Dmitry V. Levin" > Suggested-by: "Dmitry V. Levin" > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin Also consider adding Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.9+ Besides that, looks good, thanks! -- ldv