From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:49:14 +0000 (GMT) Received: from p508B6290.dip.t-dialin.net ([IPv6:::ffff:80.139.98.144]:36827 "EHLO dea.linux-mips.net") by linux-mips.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 01:49:01 +0000 Received: (from ralf@localhost) by dea.linux-mips.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0O1ms221934; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:48:54 +0100 Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 02:48:54 +0100 From: Ralf Baechle To: Vivien Chappelier Cc: Andrew Clausen , linux-mips@linux-mips.org Subject: Re: sigset_t32 broken? Message-ID: <20030124024854.B9031@linux-mips.org> References: <20030123071753.GA996@pureza.melbourne.sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from vivienc@nerim.net on Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 10:59:29AM +0100 Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 1214 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: ralf@linux-mips.org Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 10:59:29AM +0100, Vivien Chappelier wrote: > > Shouldn't those two long's be replaced with u64 and u32 > > respectively? Is the second struct really meant to be twice the > > size the first? > > They should be the same size, otherwise sys32_rt_sigsuspend and > sys32_rt_sigaction will return EINVAL. As the comment says: > /* XXX: Don't preclude handling different sized sigset_t's. */ > > I've posted a patch to fix that earlier this month (Monday 13 Jan > 2003 "[2.5 PATCH] signal handling"). Most of what your patch does is undoing an accidental commit of a signal rework that wasn't yet supposed to go out. Ralf