From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754547AbaIAPbN (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:31:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f170.google.com ([209.85.223.170]:40316 "EHLO mail-ie0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754526AbaIAPbK (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2014 11:31:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1409369788-22563-1-git-send-email-bobby.prani@gmail.com> <54036090.1050104@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 17:31:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Wire up three syscalls From: David Herrmann To: Pranith Kumar Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , Paul Mackerras , Michael Ellerman , Anton Blanchard , Fabian Frederick , Andrew Morton , "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC..." , open list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote: > Hi David, > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:33 AM, David Herrmann wrote: >> >> Nice catch. We changed 'flags' from u64 to "unsigned int" in the last >> revision of the series. Patch looks good, but I'd prefer using >> "unsigned int" as type, instead of __u32. Just to be consistent with >> the syscall interface. The return type of F_GET_SEALS is actually >> "int" and the MSB is reserved for signed error codes, so you can >> savely use "int r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS, 0)" in >> mfd_assert_get_seals(). >> > > OK. Should I send a new patch with these changes or do you have one > line up already? I'd appreciate if you can resend it. Btw., the original patch (wire up syscalls) can be applied unchanged. Thanks David From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ig0-x229.google.com (mail-ig0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE4BC1A002C for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2014 01:31:13 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail-ig0-f169.google.com with SMTP id r2so2393434igi.0 for ; Mon, 01 Sep 2014 08:31:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1409369788-22563-1-git-send-email-bobby.prani@gmail.com> <54036090.1050104@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 17:31:09 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Wire up three syscalls From: David Herrmann To: Pranith Kumar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: open list , Fabian Frederick , Geert Uytterhoeven , Anton Blanchard , Paul Mackerras , Andrew Morton , "open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC..." List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Hi On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 5:21 PM, Pranith Kumar wrote: > Hi David, > > On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:33 AM, David Herrmann wrote: >> >> Nice catch. We changed 'flags' from u64 to "unsigned int" in the last >> revision of the series. Patch looks good, but I'd prefer using >> "unsigned int" as type, instead of __u32. Just to be consistent with >> the syscall interface. The return type of F_GET_SEALS is actually >> "int" and the MSB is reserved for signed error codes, so you can >> savely use "int r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS, 0)" in >> mfd_assert_get_seals(). >> > > OK. Should I send a new patch with these changes or do you have one > line up already? I'd appreciate if you can resend it. Btw., the original patch (wire up syscalls) can be applied unchanged. Thanks David