Hi Arnd, On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:32:55 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann Thanks > It's a bit inconsistent though since put_compat_sigset() has the > comments in separate lines, as of commit 89976005536c > ("include/linux/compat.h: mark expected switch fall-throughs"). OK, I wasn't aware of that one. > I don't care either way, but it might be better to do it the same way > for both. Indeed, I will redo it that way (with your Acked-by). > We could also consider just getting rid of put_compat_sigset() and > get_compat_sigset() but replacing them with a combined > put_sigset()/get_sigset() that does the right thing for both native > and compat tasks. This lets us kill a couple of compat system > calls that only differ in their sigset_t argument. On little-endian > systems (which are the vast majority of the installed base), there > is no difference anyway there is no overhead anyway since > native and compat sigset_t are identical. That sounds like a bigger patch that would require some real testing :-) -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell