Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753668Ab0AHPwB (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:52:01 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753250Ab0AHPv6 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:51:58 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.187]:51110 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752435Ab0AHPv5 (ORCPT ); Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:51:57 -0500 From: Arnd Bergmann To: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] generic sys_ipc wrapper Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 16:49:34 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-14-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux@arm.linux.org.uk, starvik@axis.com, jesper.nilsson@axis.com, dhowells@redhat.com, ysato@users.sourceforge.jp, takata@linux-m32r.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, zippel@linux-m68k.org, gerg@uclinux.org, ralf@linux-mips.org, benh@kernel.crashing.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com, heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com, lethal@linux-sh.org, davem@davemloft.net, jdike@addtoit.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk References: <20100106172152.GC17163@lst.de> <201001081157.17195.arnd@arndb.de> <20100108153443.GA14494@lst.de> In-Reply-To: <20100108153443.GA14494@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201001081649.34308.arnd@arndb.de> X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX188omX+/VFLppPUSoN/HhUGfOMBhthilw0POL6 49eAPByut5FzKx9BACqGpEZlCqXrLHhmCb+VGbfeF9mPJVlE/b GC1HG9qJNMJm15rPsctdg== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1274 Lines: 33 On Friday 08 January 2010, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Possiblly. Not sure if it's worth it, though. If the s390 maintainers > want it I'd say do it as a separate patch. Sounds fair. > at least on powerpc and s390, possibly on all 64 bit machines: > > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + if (get_user(fourth.__pad, (void __user * __user *) ptr)) > > > + return -EFAULT; > > > + return sys_semctl(first, second, third, fourth); > > > > return sys_semctl(first, (int)second, third, fourth); > > What does the explicit case buy us in terms of sign-extension over > the implicit one given that the second argument to sys_semctl already is > types as int? You're right, it's not needed any more, in particular since Heiko added the wrappers around each syscall to do yet another sign extension, but this one was probably right in your version already. You convinced me that the patch is good in its current shape. Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/