On 03/05, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Ok, everything looks fine to me.
>
> Except looking at this, I don't think this part:
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > struct user_arg_ptr {
> > - const char __user *const __user *native;
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > + bool is_compat;
> > +#endif
> > + union {
> > + const char __user *const __user *native;
> > + compat_uptr_t __user *compat;
> > + } ptr;
> > };
>
> will necessarily even compile on an architecture that doesn't have any
> 'compat' support.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, now this is a really good point.
> Do we even define 'compat_uptr_t' for that case? I don't think so.
Indeed, you are right.
What I was thinking about? I do not know.
> So I suspect you need two of those annoying #ifdef's.
please expect v5 tomorrow.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>