On 05/17/2012 03:13 PM, H.J. Lu wrote: > From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@xxxxxxxxx> > > Replace unsigned long with __kernel_ulong_t in struct msqid64_ds for > user space. Don't change unsigned long when __BITS_PER_LONG != 64 > since __kernel_ulong_t == unsigned long in this case. > > Signed-off-by: H.J. Lu <hjl.tools@xxxxxxxxx> This patch and the one before it seems to have another problem: we currently define __BITS_PER_LONG as: #ifdef __x86_64__ # define __BITS_PER_LONG 64 #else # define __BITS_PER_LONG 32 #endif ... which means __BITS_PER_LONG == 64 on x86-64. This seems wrong. The result would seem to be that the padding members around __kernel_time_t in struct shmid64_ds (not visible in patch 07/10 but existing in the same structure) work by accident (I also wonder how the heck they're currently supposed to work on bigendian architectures!!) However, whereas struct shmid64_ds seems to work okay, this patch would now seem to be wrong. The sane thing would seem to be to change __BITS_PER_LONG to 32 on x32 and fix the padding hacks in struct shmid64_ds; H.J., would you agree? -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
