MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211221163532.2636028-1-guoren@kernel.org> <20211221163532.2636028-9-guoren@kernel.org>
 <CAK8P3a0-ZOwoC_Ft+TiKAXdETcqU5XPS+9DZGkA+bB73SNCCbQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a0-ZOwoC_Ft+TiKAXdETcqU5XPS+9DZGkA+bB73SNCCbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Date:   Wed, 22 Dec 2021 20:06:55 +0800
Message-ID: <CAJF2gTQ=Yo98-S12D9CbVXPJsAKpLu1NhJAVB3yu+J9thz6CUg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/13] riscv: compat: Add COMPAT Kbuild skeletal support
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Anup Patel <anup.patel@wdc.com>,
        gregkh <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        liush <liush@allwinnertech.com>, Wei Fu <wefu@redhat.com>,
        Drew Fustini <drew@beagleboard.org>,
        Wang Junqiang <wangjunqiang@iscas.ac.cn>,
        =?UTF-8?B?V2VpIFd1ICjlkLTkvJ8p?= <lazyparser@gmail.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-riscv <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, Guo Ren <guoren@linux.alibaba.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 22, 2021 at 2:23 AM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 5:35 PM <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
> > +
> > +config SYSVIPC_COMPAT
> > +       def_bool y
> > +       depends on COMPAT && SYSVIPC
>
> Can this be moved to init/Kconfig next to SYSVIPC?

I would try another patchset, to see other architecture guys' advice.

$ grep SYSVIPC_COMPAT arch -r
arch/x86/Kconfig:config SYSVIPC_COMPAT
arch/parisc/Kconfig:config SYSVIPC_COMPAT
arch/powerpc/Kconfig:config SYSVIPC_COMPAT
arch/arm64/Kconfig:config SYSVIPC_COMPAT
arch/riscv/Kconfig:config SYSVIPC_COMPAT
arch/s390/Kconfig:config SYSVIPC_COMPAT
arch/mips/Kconfig:config SYSVIPC_COMPAT
arch/mips/Kconfig:      select SYSVIPC_COMPAT if SYSVIPC
arch/mips/Kconfig:      select SYSVIPC_COMPAT if SYSVIPC
arch/sparc/Kconfig:config SYSVIPC_COMPAT

>
> > +
> > +COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE0(rt_sigreturn)
> > +{
> > +       return 0;
> > +}
>
> This confused me a bit while reviewing, would it make sense to reorder the
> patches to add the three missing functions first instead of adding the
> dummy and then replacing it?
Okay, I would try in the next version. Make the compile at last.

>
>
>         Arnd


-- 
Best Regards
 Guo Ren

ML: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-csky/