From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sc8-sf-mx2-b.sourceforge.net ([10.3.1.92] helo=mail.sourceforge.net) by sc8-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1E4bSQ-0003c5-MU for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:40:38 -0700 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]) by mail.sourceforge.net with esmtps (TLSv1:DES-CBC3-SHA:168) (Exim 4.44) id 1E4bSO-0005Uf-9f for user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:40:38 -0700 From: Russell King Message-ID: <20050815104022.D19811@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <20050812182145.DF52E24E7F3@zion.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050812182145.DF52E24E7F3@zion.home.lan>; from blaisorblade@yahoo.it on Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:21:45PM +0200 Subject: [uml-devel] Re: [patch 18/39] remap_file_pages protection support: add VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV Sender: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: user-mode-linux-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Unsubscribe: , List-Id: The user-mode Linux development list List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , List-Archive: Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:40:22 +0100 To: blaisorblade@yahoo.it Cc: akpm@osdl.org, jdike@addtoit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mingo@elte.hu On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:21:45PM +0200, blaisorblade@yahoo.it wrote: > @@ -632,10 +632,11 @@ static inline int page_mapped(struct pag > * Used to decide whether a process gets delivered SIGBUS or > * just gets major/minor fault counters bumped up. > */ > -#define VM_FAULT_OOM (-1) > -#define VM_FAULT_SIGBUS 0 > -#define VM_FAULT_MINOR 1 > -#define VM_FAULT_MAJOR 2 > +#define VM_FAULT_OOM (-1) > +#define VM_FAULT_SIGBUS 0 > +#define VM_FAULT_MINOR 1 > +#define VM_FAULT_MAJOR 2 > +#define VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV 3 > > #define offset_in_page(p) ((unsigned long)(p) & ~PAGE_MASK) > Please arrange for "success" values to be numerically larger than "failure" values. This will avoid breaking ARM. Is there a reason why we don't use -ve numbers for failure and +ve for success here? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ User-mode-linux-devel mailing list User-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/user-mode-linux-devel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932378AbVHOJka (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:40:30 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932386AbVHOJka (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:40:30 -0400 Received: from caramon.arm.linux.org.uk ([212.18.232.186]:51466 "EHLO caramon.arm.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932378AbVHOJk3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:40:29 -0400 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:40:22 +0100 From: Russell King To: blaisorblade@yahoo.it Cc: akpm@osdl.org, jdike@addtoit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [patch 18/39] remap_file_pages protection support: add VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV Message-ID: <20050815104022.D19811@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> Mail-Followup-To: blaisorblade@yahoo.it, akpm@osdl.org, jdike@addtoit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, mingo@elte.hu References: <20050812182145.DF52E24E7F3@zion.home.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20050812182145.DF52E24E7F3@zion.home.lan>; from blaisorblade@yahoo.it on Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:21:45PM +0200 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 08:21:45PM +0200, blaisorblade@yahoo.it wrote: > @@ -632,10 +632,11 @@ static inline int page_mapped(struct pag > * Used to decide whether a process gets delivered SIGBUS or > * just gets major/minor fault counters bumped up. > */ > -#define VM_FAULT_OOM (-1) > -#define VM_FAULT_SIGBUS 0 > -#define VM_FAULT_MINOR 1 > -#define VM_FAULT_MAJOR 2 > +#define VM_FAULT_OOM (-1) > +#define VM_FAULT_SIGBUS 0 > +#define VM_FAULT_MINOR 1 > +#define VM_FAULT_MAJOR 2 > +#define VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV 3 > > #define offset_in_page(p) ((unsigned long)(p) & ~PAGE_MASK) > Please arrange for "success" values to be numerically larger than "failure" values. This will avoid breaking ARM. Is there a reason why we don't use -ve numbers for failure and +ve for success here? -- Russell King Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/ maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core