Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. I did not see the changes to kernel/signal.c and fs/signalfd.c that remove the #ifdef BUS_MCERR_AR etc. Did I miss that patch. >> 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. For however much it helps. Reviewed-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Eric
