On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 12:25:38PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: >> From: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx> >> >> Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Russell King <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- > > This has me wondering... > > (a) what you think it fixes > (b) whether you tried to build-test this > > The ARM instruction set supports 8-bit immediate constants with an even > power of two shift. 384 fits that (0x180), 382 does not (0x17e), and > in your following patch, 383 definitely doesn't (0x17f). > > Having this constant larger than necessary does not cause any problem > for the syscall table: we explicitly pad it with calls to sys_ni_syscall > to make up the difference. Yes, and the padding will be of wrong length if NR_syscalls is incorrect (which may be Oopsable?). At least that is my impression from a casual glance. Thanks, Miklos -- 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
