From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932443AbeCOSIu (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:08:50 -0400 Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:41659 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932257AbeCOSIs (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2018 14:08:48 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: linux-arch , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Al Viro , Thomas Gleixner References: <20180314143529.1456168-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180314144614.1632190-1-arnd@arndb.de> <20180314144614.1632190-2-arnd@arndb.de> <87po45hcuy.fsf@xmission.com> <87o9jpbmcy.fsf@xmission.com> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:07:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: (Arnd Bergmann's message of "Thu, 15 Mar 2018 13:50:36 +0100") Message-ID: <87fu51b4ao.fsf@xmission.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1ewXJ1-0006jq-5F;;;mid=<87fu51b4ao.fsf@xmission.com>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=97.119.121.173;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19hfrlNNPRlbDORUUX5RylIzV4CfdUX42k= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 97.119.121.173 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-Spam-Report: * -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP * 0.0 TVD_RCVD_IP Message was received from an IP address * 1.5 XMNoVowels Alpha-numberic number with no vowels * 0.7 XMSubLong Long Subject * 0.0 T_TM2_M_HEADER_IN_MSG BODY: No description available. * 0.8 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 40 to 60% * [score: 0.5000] * -0.0 DCC_CHECK_NEGATIVE Not listed in DCC * [sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1] * 0.0 T_TooManySym_01 4+ unique symbols in subject X-Spam-DCC: XMission; sa06 1397; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Combo: **;Arnd Bergmann X-Spam-Relay-Country: X-Spam-Timing: total 238 ms - load_scoreonly_sql: 0.03 (0.0%), signal_user_changed: 5 (2.2%), b_tie_ro: 3.6 (1.5%), parse: 0.77 (0.3%), extract_message_metadata: 13 (5.3%), get_uri_detail_list: 1.69 (0.7%), tests_pri_-1000: 7 (3.1%), tests_pri_-950: 1.25 (0.5%), tests_pri_-900: 0.94 (0.4%), tests_pri_-400: 21 (8.8%), check_bayes: 20 (8.4%), b_tokenize: 7 (2.7%), b_tok_get_all: 7 (3.0%), b_comp_prob: 2.2 (0.9%), b_tok_touch_all: 2.1 (0.9%), b_finish: 0.57 (0.2%), tests_pri_0: 183 (76.7%), check_dkim_signature: 0.48 (0.2%), check_dkim_adsp: 2.6 (1.1%), tests_pri_500: 3.9 (1.6%), rewrite_mail: 0.00 (0.0%) Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] asm-generic: siginfo: remove obsolete #ifdefs X-Spam-Flag: No X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Arnd Bergmann writes: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Eric W. Biederman > wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Eric W. Biederman > >>> That seems reasonable. If you send me a patch with a proper >>> changelog (I don't think I could explain this well enough), I'll >>> add it to the series. >> >> I just realized you can also remove the #ifdefs for BUS_MCEERR_AR, >> BUS_MCEERR_AO, and SEGV_BNDERR. As those si_codes are now always >> defined. That description I expect you can handle. > > My existing patch already does this, and I've added a note to the changelog > as well now. I did not see the changes to kernel/signal.c and fs/signalfd.c that remove the #ifdef BUS_MCERR_AR etc. Did I miss that patch. >> For a description of the above change how does this sound? >> >> Unlike system call numbers the assignment of si_codes has never had a >> reason to be made per architecture. Some architectures have had unique >> conditions to report and reporting those conditions needed new si_codes. >> Nothing has ever needed si_codes to have different values on different >> architectures. The si_code space is vast so even with defining all >> si_codes on all architectures there is no danger in running out of >> si_code values. >> >> The history of the si_codes BUS_MCEERR_AR, BUS_MCEER_AO, SEGV_BNDERR, >> and SEGV_PKUERR show that a need of one architecture frequently becomes >> a need of another architecture which makes sharing si_codes between >> architectures a positive benefit and something to be encouraged. >> >> Where there are no conflicts with the historical ia64 arch specific >> si_codes and any other si_codes make them generic si_codes. We might >> need them on another architecture someday. >> >> This leaves only the good example of arch generic si_codes in the kernel >> for future architectures and architecture enhancments to follow. >> Without bad examples to follow it should be easy to avoid the mistakes >> of the past. > > Ok, done. I've listed you as 'Suggested-by' for that patch. Since the > changelog is way more work than the actual change, I would have > made you the author of that patch, but I don't have a Signed-off-by > from you for it. For however much it helps. Reviewed-by: "Eric W. Biederman" Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" Eric