On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:44:19PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Eric W. Biederman) > > Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:27:16 -0600 > > > >> Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@xxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >>> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:13:08PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >>> However, the purpose of this as an RFC was to get feedback on whether > >>> adding FPE_UNKNOWN is considered acceptable at all from an API > >>> perspective -- the precise number doesn't matter for that discussion. > >>> > >>> Do you have any view on this? > >> > >> That seems as good a solution as any too me. It is reality and it > >> happens in the code and there are several places of the same form I > >> would use it, just to get rid of the FPE_FIXME. > > > > Eric, feel free to do something similar on Sparc. > > Will do. > > This sounds like a good solution for this weird corner case, that > appears on multiple architectures. OK, I'll rebase my patches onto your tree (though trivial here) and repost. I'm still waiting for feeback on the Arm specifics, but FPE_UNKNOWN could be picked up independently of that. Cheers ---Dave
