* sigset_t32 broken?
@ 2003-01-23 7:17 Andrew Clausen
2003-01-23 9:59 ` Vivien Chappelier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Clausen @ 2003-01-23 7:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-mips
Hi all,
Cut&paste from linux/asm/mips64/signal.h:
#define _NSIG 128
#define _NSIG_BPW 64
#define _NSIG_WORDS (_NSIG / _NSIG_BPW)
typedef struct {
long sig[_NSIG_WORDS];
} sigset_t;
#define _NSIG32 128
#define _NSIG_BPW32 32
#define _NSIG_WORDS32 (_NSIG32 / _NSIG_BPW32)
typedef struct {
long sig[_NSIG_WORDS32];
} sigset_t32;
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?
Cheers,
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: sigset_t32 broken?
2003-01-23 7:17 sigset_t32 broken? Andrew Clausen
@ 2003-01-23 9:59 ` Vivien Chappelier
2003-01-24 1:48 ` Ralf Baechle
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vivien Chappelier @ 2003-01-23 9:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Clausen; +Cc: Ralf Baechle, linux-mips
On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Andrew Clausen 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").
BTW, anyone working on mips64 2.5 kernel should have a look at my patch
set (http://www.linux-mips.org/~glaurung/O2/linux-2.5.47/patches-2.5.47.tar.gz)
for patches named "linux-mips-*.diff" as they might be relevant for other
machines than just the O2, and the more they are tested the better. A
README is provided to explain briefly what they (try to) fix.
regards,
Vivien.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: sigset_t32 broken?
2003-01-23 9:59 ` Vivien Chappelier
@ 2003-01-24 1:48 ` Ralf Baechle
2003-01-27 0:44 ` Vivien Chappelier
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Ralf Baechle @ 2003-01-24 1:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vivien Chappelier; +Cc: Andrew Clausen, 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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: sigset_t32 broken?
2003-01-24 1:48 ` Ralf Baechle
@ 2003-01-27 0:44 ` Vivien Chappelier
2003-01-27 9:19 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Vivien Chappelier @ 2003-01-27 0:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ralf Baechle; +Cc: linux-mips
On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> Most of what your patch does is undoing an accidental commit of a signal
> rework that wasn't yet supposed to go out.
Maybe.. but current version is still wrong :) The type of the sig
array in the 32-bit compatibility struct sigset_t32 must be 32bit long,
i.e. unsigned int not unsigned long.
And I think unsigned describes the data better than signed, but that's a
matter of taste :) (coherent with the choice in asm-mips/signal.h).
Vivien.
--- include/asm-mips64/signal.h 2003-01-26 02:41:48.000000000 +0100
+++ include/asm-mips64/signal.h 2003-01-27 01:28:13.000000000 +0100
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@
#define _NSIG_WORDS (_NSIG / _NSIG_BPW)
typedef struct {
- long sig[_NSIG_WORDS];
+ unsigned long sig[_NSIG_WORDS];
} sigset_t;
#define _NSIG32 128
@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
#define _NSIG_WORDS32 (_NSIG32 / _NSIG_BPW32)
typedef struct {
- long sig[_NSIG_WORDS32];
+ unsigned int sig[_NSIG_WORDS32];
} sigset_t32;
typedef unsigned long old_sigset_t; /* at least 32 bits */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: sigset_t32 broken?
2003-01-27 0:44 ` Vivien Chappelier
@ 2003-01-27 9:19 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-01-27 22:30 ` Juan Quintela
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Geert Uytterhoeven @ 2003-01-27 9:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vivien Chappelier; +Cc: Ralf Baechle, Linux/MIPS Development
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Vivien Chappelier wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Ralf Baechle wrote:
> > Most of what your patch does is undoing an accidental commit of a signal
> > rework that wasn't yet supposed to go out.
>
> Maybe.. but current version is still wrong :) The type of the sig
> array in the 32-bit compatibility struct sigset_t32 must be 32bit long,
> i.e. unsigned int not unsigned long.
> And I think unsigned describes the data better than signed, but that's a
> matter of taste :) (coherent with the choice in asm-mips/signal.h).
Why not make it u32?
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: sigset_t32 broken?
2003-01-27 9:19 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
@ 2003-01-27 22:30 ` Juan Quintela
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Juan Quintela @ 2003-01-27 22:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Geert Uytterhoeven
Cc: Vivien Chappelier, Ralf Baechle, Linux/MIPS Development
>>>>> "geert" == Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes:
geert> On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Vivien Chappelier wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Ralf Baechle wrote:
>> > Most of what your patch does is undoing an accidental commit of a signal
>> > rework that wasn't yet supposed to go out.
>>
>> Maybe.. but current version is still wrong :) The type of the sig
>> array in the 32-bit compatibility struct sigset_t32 must be 32bit long,
>> i.e. unsigned int not unsigned long.
>> And I think unsigned describes the data better than signed, but that's a
>> matter of taste :) (coherent with the choice in asm-mips/signal.h).
geert> Why not make it u32?
Nahh, that will make it clear indeed to stupid's like me :p
Later ,Juan.
--
In theory, practice and theory are the same, but in practice they
are different -- Larry McVoy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-01-27 22:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-01-23 7:17 sigset_t32 broken? Andrew Clausen
2003-01-23 9:59 ` Vivien Chappelier
2003-01-24 1:48 ` Ralf Baechle
2003-01-27 0:44 ` Vivien Chappelier
2003-01-27 9:19 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2003-01-27 22:30 ` Juan Quintela
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.