From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753127AbYIWIzi (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:55:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751592AbYIWIzb (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:55:31 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:57662 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751528AbYIWIza (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Sep 2008 04:55:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 10:55:18 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Hiroshi Shimamoto Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -tip 0/4] x86: signal handler improvement Message-ID: <20080923085518.GA29703@elte.hu> References: <48D84A2A.2030009@ct.jp.nec.com> <20080923085027.GA25698@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080923085027.GA25698@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar wrote: > could we perhaps first finish unifying them into signal.c, and then > introduce __put_user_cerr() in signal_32/64.c? i've got an API suggestion as well. Instead of: - err |= __put_user(UC_FP_XSTATE, &frame->uc.uc_flags); + __put_user_cerr(UC_FP_XSTATE, &frame->uc.uc_flags, err); could you instead please make it: + __put_user_cerr(UC_FP_XSTATE, &frame->uc.uc_flags, &err); i.e. pass in 'err' as a reference. This makes it clear to the casual reader, in a C calling convention sense, that there's a side-effect to 'err'. [ There should be no change to the resulting code as __put_user_cerr() is a macro. ] Ingo