On Mon, 3 Jul 2017 17:20:22 +0200
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 04:29:37PM +0200, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> > > ---
> > > arch/s390/include/asm/syscall.h | 10 +++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > There are callers of syscall_get_arguments with n=0. And it makes
> > sense to check for this case in the function instead of forcing all
> > callers to check for it.
> >
> > > diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/syscall.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/syscall.h
> > > index 6ba0bf928909..5f7c11c932fa 100644
> > > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/syscall.h
> > > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/syscall.h
> > > @@ -64,14 +64,22 @@ static inline void syscall_get_arguments(struct task_struct *task,
> > > {
> > > unsigned long mask = -1UL;
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * No arguments for this syscall, there's nothing to do.
> > > + */
> > > + if (!n)
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > BUG_ON(i + n > 6);
> >
> > So yes, for this part of the patch.
> >
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT
> > > if (test_tsk_thread_flag(task, TIF_31BIT))
> > > mask = 0xffffffff;
> > > #endif
> > > - while (n-- > 0)
> > > + while (n-- > 0) {
> > > if (i + n > 0)
> > > args[n] = regs->gprs[2 + i + n] & mask;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > if (i == 0)
> > > args[0] = regs->orig_gpr2 & mask;
> > > }
> >
> > But why the unrelated whitespace damage with the additional { } ?
>
> I always get shouted at when I'm not using { } in conditions/loops
> having more than 1 line.. so I tend to add them when I see this
> breakage ;-)
I agree that there should have been { } with the initial patch.
It is just that the cleanup is unrelated to the true bug fix
> feel free to imot that or let me know and I'll send v2
I will strip that part and add a Cc: stable. Thanks.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
