From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Rothwell Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:33:22 +1000 Message-ID: <20170629073322.1b007407@canb.auug.org.au> References: <20170628180456.30cb9242@canb.auug.org.au> <664cc88d-18a5-18c4-5bce-4d4352d15f4f@kernel.dk> <2bd17edb-4a5b-5bf8-7074-1156a5249325@kernel.dk> <2c4503f8-8284-2578-3622-03529cc8bffe@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:36919 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751548AbdF1Vd0 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Jun 2017 17:33:26 -0400 In-Reply-To: <2c4503f8-8284-2578-3622-03529cc8bffe@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Jens Axboe Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Martin K. Petersen" , Michael Ellerman , Benjamin Herrenschmidt , PowerPC Hi Jens, On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:11:32 -0600 Jens Axboe wrote: > > On 06/28/2017 08:01 AM, Jens Axboe wrote: > > But put_user() is fine? Just checking here, since the change adds > > both a u64 put and get user. Yes, put_user is fine (it does 2 4 byte moves. The asm is there to do the 8 byte get_user, but the surrounding C code uses an unsigned long for the destination in all cases (some other arches do the same). I don't remember why it is like that. > I just changed all 4, at least that provides some symmetry in how > we copy things in and out for that set of fcntls. OK, thanks. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell