Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220227162831.674483-1-guoren@kernel.org> <20220227162831.674483-4-guoren@kernel.org>
 <b8e765910e274c0fb574ff23f88b881c@AcuMS.aculab.com> <CAJF2gTRQ0XWSjoEeREtEGr5PPD-rHrBKFY_i6_9uW3eEN_6muQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <e5ee4f6799704bd59b0c580157a05d2d@AcuMS.aculab.com> <CAJF2gTQhFK55z4juC7uHpWmHsEXSOkbMyXeid6KsnhfPRo7wqg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJF2gTQhFK55z4juC7uHpWmHsEXSOkbMyXeid6KsnhfPRo7wqg@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Date:   Mon, 28 Feb 2022 13:51:03 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK8P3a0ZXuGWO+n2ghxhXmxntZAk_HPDmsk3cigdh2FBMQcKYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V7 03/20] compat: consolidate the compat_flock{,64} definition
To:     Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org>
Cc:     David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com>,
        "palmer@dabbelt.com" <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        "arnd@arndb.de" <arnd@arndb.de>,
        "anup@brainfault.org" <anup@brainfault.org>,
        "gregkh@linuxfoundation.org" <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "liush@allwinnertech.com" <liush@allwinnertech.com>,
        "wefu@redhat.com" <wefu@redhat.com>,
        "drew@beagleboard.org" <drew@beagleboard.org>,
        "wangjunqiang@iscas.ac.cn" <wangjunqiang@iscas.ac.cn>,
        "hch@lst.de" <hch@lst.de>,
        "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-csky@vger.kernel.org" <linux-csky@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-s390@vger.kernel.org" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
        "sparclinux@vger.kernel.org" <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        "linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org" <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mips@vger.kernel.org" <linux-mips@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 1:13 PM Guo Ren <guoren@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 8:02 PM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> > From: Guo Ren Sent: 28 February 2022 11:52
> > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:40 PM David Laight <David.Laight@aculab.com> wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > > > +struct compat_flock64 {
> > > > > +     short           l_type;
> > > > > +     short           l_whence;
> > > > > +     compat_loff_t   l_start;
> > > > > +     compat_loff_t   l_len;
> > > > > +     compat_pid_t    l_pid;
> > > > > +#ifdef __ARCH_COMPAT_FLOCK64_PAD
> > > > > +     __ARCH_COMPAT_FLOCK64_PAD
> > > > > +#endif
> > > > > +} __ARCH_COMPAT_FLOCK64_PACK;
> > > > > +
> > > >
> > > > Provided compat_loff_t are correctly defined with __aligned__(4)
> > > See include/asm-generic/compat.h
> > >
> > > typedef s64 compat_loff_t;
> > >
> > > Only:
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_COMPAT_FOR_U64_ALIGNMENT
> > > typedef s64 __attribute__((aligned(4))) compat_s64;
> > >
> > > So how do you think compat_loff_t could be defined with __aligned__(4)?
> >
> > compat_loff_t should be compat_s64 not s64.
> >
> > The same should be done for all 64bit 'compat' types.
> Changing
> typedef s64 compat_loff_t;
> to
> typedef compat_s64 compat_loff_t;
>
> should be another patch and it affects all architectures, I don't
> think we should involve it in this series.

Agreed, your patch (originally from Christoph) looks fine, it correctly
transforms the seven copies of the structure into a shared version.

There is always more that can be improved, but for this series,
I think you have already done enough.

> look at kernel/power/user.c:
> struct compat_resume_swap_area {
>         compat_loff_t offset;
>         u32 dev;
> } __packed;
>
> I thnk keep "typedef s64 compat_loff_t;" is a sensible choice for
> COMPAT support patchset series.

The only references to compat_loff_t that we have in the kernel
could all be simplified by defining compat_loff_t as compat_s64
instead of s64, but it has no impact on correctness here.

Let's make sure you get your series into 5.18, and then David can
follow-up with any further cleanups after that.

         Arnd