On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Eric W. Biederman
<ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Eric W. Biederman
>> That seems reasonable. If you send me a patch with a proper
>> changelog (I don't think I could explain this well enough), I'll
>> add it to the series.
>
> I just realized you can also remove the #ifdefs for BUS_MCEERR_AR,
> BUS_MCEERR_AO, and SEGV_BNDERR. As those si_codes are now always
> defined. That description I expect you can handle.
My existing patch already does this, and I've added a note to the changelog
as well now.
> For a description of the above change how does this sound?
>
> Unlike system call numbers the assignment of si_codes has never had a
> reason to be made per architecture. Some architectures have had unique
> conditions to report and reporting those conditions needed new si_codes.
> Nothing has ever needed si_codes to have different values on different
> architectures. The si_code space is vast so even with defining all
> si_codes on all architectures there is no danger in running out of
> si_code values.
>
> The history of the si_codes BUS_MCEERR_AR, BUS_MCEER_AO, SEGV_BNDERR,
> and SEGV_PKUERR show that a need of one architecture frequently becomes
> a need of another architecture which makes sharing si_codes between
> architectures a positive benefit and something to be encouraged.
>
> Where there are no conflicts with the historical ia64 arch specific
> si_codes and any other si_codes make them generic si_codes. We might
> need them on another architecture someday.
>
> This leaves only the good example of arch generic si_codes in the kernel
> for future architectures and architecture enhancments to follow.
> Without bad examples to follow it should be easy to avoid the mistakes
> of the past.
Ok, done. I've listed you as 'Suggested-by' for that patch. Since the
changelog is way more work than the actual change, I would have
made you the author of that patch, but I don't have a Signed-off-by
from you for it.
Arnd
