Re: tst-cputimer1 and tst-timer4

[John David Anglin <dave.anglin@bell.net>]

On 7/8/2011 11:00 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 06 Juli 2011, 00:17:03 schrieben Sie:
>> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Rolf Eike Beer<eike@sf-mail.de>  wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag 05 Juli 2011, 19:28:35 schrieben Sie:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Carlos O'Donell
>>>> <carlos@systemhalted.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:50 PM, John David Anglin
>>>>> <dave.anglin@bell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> The Linux man page says the mprotect addr must be a valid pointer or
>>>>>> a multiple of PAGESIZE.
>>>>>> It's not clear what the mprotect call is trying to protect but it is
>>>>>> definitely not page aligned.
>>>>> It's trying to protect the new stack for the thread, which is
>>>>> obviously in the wrong spot.
>>>> Good news.
>>>>
>>>> I have fixed tst-cputimer1.
>>> You also wrote "OK, fixed the kernel." So where an when will these fixes
>>> show up?
>> Unfortunately I hosed my setup and I didn't have git installed to make
>> a proper diff so here's a diff versus a somewhat recent tree.
>>
>>   WIP patch: http://www.parisc-linux.org/~carlos/futex.diff
> Half of your diff (e.g. the int->u32 conversion) is already in upstream. I've
> rediffed it against Linus tree and fixed some of the whitespace damage.
>
> Eike

+	if (!ret)
+		if (val == oldval)
+			ret = put_user(newval, uaddr);

This bit is ugly.

Dave

-- 
John David Anglin    dave.anglin@bell.net