Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 5/5] linux-user: Fix flock structure for MIPS O64 ABI

[Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.m.mail@gmail.com>]

On Jun 19, 2019 6:34 PM, "Laurent Vivier" <laurent@vivier.eu> wrote:
>
> Le 19/06/2019 à 16:17, Aleksandar Markovic a écrit :
> > From: Aleksandar Markovic <amarkovic@wavecomp.com>
> >
> > Only MIPS O32 and N32 have special (different than other
> > architectures) definition of structure flock in kernel.
> >
> > Bring flock definition for MIPS O64 ABI to the correct state.
> >
> > Reported-by: Dragan Mladjenovic <dmladjenovic@wavecomp.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Aleksandar Markovic <amarkovic@wavecomp.com>
> > ---
> >  linux-user/generic/fcntl.h     | 2 +-
> >  linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h | 4 ++++
> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/linux-user/generic/fcntl.h b/linux-user/generic/fcntl.h
> > index a775a49..1b48dde 100644
> > --- a/linux-user/generic/fcntl.h
> > +++ b/linux-user/generic/fcntl.h
> > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ struct target_flock {
> >      short l_whence;
> >      abi_long l_start;
> >      abi_long l_len;
> > -#if defined(TARGET_MIPS)
> > +#if defined(TARGET_MIPS) && (TARGET_ABI_BITS == 32)
> >      abi_long l_sysid;
> >  #endif
> >      int l_pid;
> > diff --git a/linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h
b/linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h
> > index 000527c..795bba7 100644
> > --- a/linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h
> > +++ b/linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h
> > @@ -27,7 +27,11 @@
> >  #define TARGET_F_SETOWN        24       /*  for sockets. */
> >  #define TARGET_F_GETOWN        23       /*  for sockets. */
> >
> > +#if (TARGET_ABI_BITS == 32)
> >  #define TARGET_ARCH_FLOCK_PAD abi_long pad[4];
> > +#else
> > +#define TARGET_ARCH_FLOCK_PAD
> > +#endif
> >  #define TARGET_ARCH_FLOCK64_PAD
> >
> >  #define TARGET_F_GETLK64       33      /*  using 'struct flock64' */
> >
>
> The patch is correct, but I think it would be cleaner to introduce an
> "TARGET_HAVE_ARCH_STRUCT_FLOCK" as we have in the kernel for the mips
case.
>
> Thanks,
> Laurent
>

Do you mean we should do everything in a single patch, or do you ask me to
devise a separate restructuring/cleanup patch here?

Aleksandar