On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:54:34AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Peter Collingbourne <pcc@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > From: Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> > > > > I believe we can and *should* drop this parisc-specific typedef for > > __sighandler_t when compiling a 64-bit kernel. The reasons: > > > > 1. We don't have a 64-bit userspace yet, so nothing (on userspace side) > > can break. > > > > 2. Inside the Linux kernel, this is only used in kernel/signal.c, in > > function kernel_sigaction() where the signal handler is compared against > > SIG_IGN. SIG_IGN is defined as (__sighandler_t)1), so only the pointers > > are compared. > > > > 3. Even when a 64-bit userspace gets added at some point, I think > > __sighandler_t should be defined what it is: a function pointer struct. > > > > I compiled kernel/signal.c with and without the patch, and the produced code > > is identical in both cases. > > > > Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@xxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Peter Collingbourne <pcc@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Link: > > https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I21c43f21b264f339e3aa395626af838646f62d97 > > Peter as you have sent this, this also needs your Signed-off-by. > > Otherwise this looks reasonable to me. > Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > While the final bits look like they are still under discussion it looks > like the preceding cleanups are pretty solid at this point. Minor nits, unless you nak the whole approach of SA_FAULTFLAGS and SA_UNSUPPORTED ;) (it looks a bit complicated to me but I don't have a better idea for a generic implementation). > Any chance we can get the cleanups into a tree in linux-next so that > the discussion can focus on the core parts of this work? > > Perhaps I should pick up the clenaups? However you prefer (I usually start queuing patches at -rc3). If you pick them up, please provide a stable branch somewhere so that we can add the others on top. Thanks. -- Catalin
