Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753987AbdLHOH7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:07:59 -0500 Received: from osg.samsung.com ([64.30.133.232]:33903 "EHLO osg.samsung.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753727AbdLHOH6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Dec 2017 09:07:58 -0500 Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:07:51 -0200 From: Mauro Carvalho Chehab To: Stefani Seibold , Andrew Morton Cc: Sean Young , linux-media@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 26/26] kfifo: DECLARE_KIFO_PTR(fifo, u64) does not work on arm 32 bit Message-ID: <20171208120751.5c3d3165@vento.lan> In-Reply-To: <1512045250.2568.1.camel@seibold.net> References: <1507622382.6064.2.camel@seibold.net> <20171130102946.7168e93c@vento.lan> <1512045250.2568.1.camel@seibold.net> Organization: Samsung X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.15.1-dirty (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1200 Lines: 38 Em Thu, 30 Nov 2017 13:34:10 +0100 Stefani Seibold escreveu: > On Thu, 2017-11-30 at 10:29 -0200, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > Em Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:59:42 +0200 > > Sean Young escreveu: > > > > > If you try to store u64 in a kfifo (or a struct with u64 members), > > > then the buf member of __STRUCT_KFIFO_PTR will cause 4 bytes > > > padding due to alignment (note that struct __kfifo is 20 bytes > > > on 32 bit). > > > > > > That in turn causes the __is_kfifo_ptr() to fail, which is caught > > > by kfifo_alloc(), which now returns EINVAL. > > > > > > So, ensure that __is_kfifo_ptr() compares to the right structure. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sean Young > > > Acked-by: Stefani Seibold > > > > Hi Stefani/Andrew, > > > > As this patch is required for the LIRC rework, would be ok if I would > > merge it via the media tree? > > > > It is okay by me. But the question remains why this patch wasn't > already merged? > > Andrew: Any objections against this patch? I'm assuming that merging via media tree is ok for Andrew. So, I guess I'll just go ahead and merge it via my tree. Thanks, Mauro