From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756825Ab2IFIqf (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 04:46:35 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:45583 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754306Ab2IFIqa (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Sep 2012 04:46:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:46:19 +0200 (CEST) From: Jiri Kosina To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Cc: Andreas Schwab , Paul Mackerras , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] powerpc: fix personality handling in ppc64_personality() In-Reply-To: <1346879598.19098.4.camel@pasglop> Message-ID: References: <1346813643.2257.24.camel@pasglop> <1346879598.19098.4.camel@pasglop> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Sep 2012, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote: > > actually commit 7256a5d2da56 seems to contain the correct PER_LINUX > > handling, so seems like you picked the right one :) > > > > Odd, they looked different around the use of PER_MASK when I looked but The original patch had personality &= ~PER_LINUX | PER_LINUX32; Which is bogus, exactly because ~PER_LINUX is -1. I then used personality = (personality & ~PER_MASK) | PER_LINUX32; which is correct and perhaps a little bit more descriptive, and that is what you have merged, so all is fine. > I was tired & jet lagged, so I might have just had a brain fail... Probably just missed that the first patch used PER_LINUX and the second one PER_MASK, or whatever. Anyway, thanks. -- Jiri Kosina SUSE Labs