Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 3 Mar 2021 15:30:19 +0100
From:   Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To:     Sergei Trofimovich <slyfox@gentoo.org>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
        "Dmitry V . Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ia64: fix ptrace(PTRACE_SYSCALL_INFO_EXIT) sign
Message-ID: <20210303143018.GB28955@redhat.com>
References: <20210221002554.333076-1-slyfox@gentoo.org>
 <20210221002554.333076-2-slyfox@gentoo.org>
 <20210302233925.081075e0@sf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210302233925.081075e0@sf>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Precedence: bulk

On 03/02, Sergei Trofimovich wrote:
>
> > --- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/syscall.h
> > +++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/syscall.h
> > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ static inline void syscall_rollback(struct task_struct *task,
> >  static inline long syscall_get_error(struct task_struct *task,
> >  				     struct pt_regs *regs)
> >  {
> > -	return regs->r10 == -1 ? regs->r8:0;
> > +	return regs->r10 == -1 ? -regs->r8:0;
> >  }
> >
> >  static inline long syscall_get_return_value(struct task_struct *task,
> > --
> > 2.30.1
> >
>
> Andrew, would it be fine to pass it through misc tree?
> Or should it go through Oleg as it's mostly about ptrace?

We usually route ptrace fixes via mm tree.

But this fix and another patch from you "ia64: fix ia64_syscall_get_set_arguments()
for break-based syscalls" look very much ia64 specific. I don't think it's actually
about ptrace, and I didn't even try to review these patches because I do not
understand this low level ia64 code.

Can it be routed via ia64 tree? Add Tony and Fenghua...

Oleg.