From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] sparc/compat: Provide an accurate in_compat_syscall implementation Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:04:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20160126.100428.940114886943875601.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20160126062951.GA17107@ravnborg.org> <20160125.225100.1932707129794761764.davem@davemloft.net> <20160126174441.GA18873@ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20160126174441.GA18873@ravnborg.org> Sender: sparclinux-owner@vger.kernel.org To: sam@ravnborg.org Cc: luto@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, cmetcalf@ezchip.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org From: Sam Ravnborg Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:44:41 +0100 > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:51:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote: >> From: Sam Ravnborg >> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:29:51 +0100 >> >> > Could you please add a comment about where 0x110 comes from. >> > I at least failed to track this down. >> >> Frankly I'm fine with this. Someone who understands sparc64 can look >> at the trap table around entry 0x110 and see: >> >> tl0_resv10e: BTRAP(0x10e) BTRAP(0x10f) >> tl0_linux32: LINUX_32BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP >> tl0_oldlinux64: LINUX_64BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP > > If one realise to look in the trap table in the first place - yes. > > Adding a short: > > /* Check if this is LINUX_32BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP */ > Would make wonders to readability. Fair enough. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:35910 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932586AbcAZSEc (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Jan 2016 13:04:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:04:28 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <20160126.100428.940114886943875601.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] sparc/compat: Provide an accurate in_compat_syscall implementation From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <20160126174441.GA18873@ravnborg.org> References: <20160126062951.GA17107@ravnborg.org> <20160125.225100.1932707129794761764.davem@davemloft.net> <20160126174441.GA18873@ravnborg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: sam@ravnborg.org Cc: luto@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, cmetcalf@ezchip.com, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-mips@linux-mips.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20160126180428.2Xa8B4ZSw8oMTT1cJ5ZBYbytr68wRfzNczaZ2gXWyVY@z> From: Sam Ravnborg Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:44:41 +0100 > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:51:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote: >> From: Sam Ravnborg >> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:29:51 +0100 >> >> > Could you please add a comment about where 0x110 comes from. >> > I at least failed to track this down. >> >> Frankly I'm fine with this. Someone who understands sparc64 can look >> at the trap table around entry 0x110 and see: >> >> tl0_resv10e: BTRAP(0x10e) BTRAP(0x10f) >> tl0_linux32: LINUX_32BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP >> tl0_oldlinux64: LINUX_64BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP > > If one realise to look in the trap table in the first place - yes. > > Adding a short: > > /* Check if this is LINUX_32BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP */ > Would make wonders to readability. Fair enough.