On 2014-09-12, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Ren, Qiaowei wrote: >> On 2014-09-12, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >>> On Thu, 11 Sep 2014, Qiaowei Ren wrote: >>> >>>> Due to new fields about bound violation added into struct >>>> siginfo, this patch syncs it with general version to avoid build issue. >>> >>> You completely fail to explain which build issue is addressed by >>> this patch. The code you added to kernel/signal.c which accesses >>> _addr_bnd is guarded by >>> >>> +#ifdef SEGV_BNDERR >>> >>> which is not defined my MIPS. Also why is this only affecting MIPS >>> and not any other architecture which provides its own struct siginfo ? >>> >>> That patch makes no sense at all, at least not without a proper explanation. >>> >> For arch=mips, siginfo.h (arch/mips/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h) will >> include general siginfo.h, and only replace general stuct siginfo >> with mips specific struct siginfo. So SEGV_BNDERR will be defined >> for all archs, and we will get error like "no _lower in struct >> siginfo" when arch=mips. >> >> In addition, only MIPS arch define its own struct siginfo, so this >> is only affecting MIPS. > > So IA64 does not count as an architecture and therefor does not need > the same treatment, right? > struct siginfo for IA64 should be also synced. I will do this next post. Thanks, Qiaowei -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href