Re: [PATCH v2 02/16] sparc/compat: Provide an accurate in_compat_syscall implementation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:44:41 +0100

> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:51:00PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Sam Ravnborg <sam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 07:29:51 +0100
>> 
>> > Could you please add a comment about where 0x110 comes from.
>> > I at least failed to track this down.
>> 
>> Frankly I'm fine with this.  Someone who understands sparc64 can look
>> at the trap table around entry 0x110 and see:
>> 
>> tl0_resv10e:	BTRAP(0x10e) BTRAP(0x10f)
>> tl0_linux32:	LINUX_32BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP
>> tl0_oldlinux64:	LINUX_64BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP
> 
> If one realise to look in the trap table in the first place - yes.
> 
> Adding a short:
> 
> /* Check if this is LINUX_32BIT_SYSCALL_TRAP */
> Would make wonders to readability.

Fair enough.
--
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



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux