From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44817)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nerv@dawncrow.de>) id 1W0CFt-0004Z1-Px
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:38:22 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nerv@dawncrow.de>) id 1W0CFo-0001x2-5V
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:38:17 -0500
Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:60641)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <nerv@dawncrow.de>) id 1W0CFn-0001wc-T3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Jan 2014 10:38:12 -0500
Message-ID: <52CACDD8.9030301@dawncrow.de>
Date: Mon, 06 Jan 2014 16:38:00 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcsOpIEhlbnRzY2hlbA==?= <nerv@dawncrow.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <52CA0D7B.5000301@dawncrow.de>
	<660199388.132669.1388997917749.open-xchange@ox-webdesk.1and1.fr>
	<CAFEAcA9sxBX-t7tZDyph4Z2C++PvOo3eO9CXuQ2EOD7ECsN7hA@mail.gmail.com>
	<677290994.138361.1389003684490.open-xchange@ox-webdesk.1and1.fr>
In-Reply-To: <677290994.138361.1389003684490.open-xchange@ox-webdesk.1and1.fr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH resend] linux-user: Support the accept4
	socketcall
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
Cc: Riku Voipio <riku.voipio@iki.fi>

> This looks ok, except that scripts/checkpatch.pl says:
> 
>     WARNING: braces {} are necessary for all arms of this statement
>     #36: FILE: linux-user/syscall.c:2254:
>     +            if (get_user_ual(sockfd, vptr)
>     [...]
> 
>     total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 30 lines checked
> 
> Fix that and I'll be happy to slap a "reviewed-by" sticker on it. Be sure
> to CC me on the fixed version of the patch.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Erik

This warning seems wrong:
 - the if statement has no braces and only one arm
 - the if statement looks like the others around it, i just try to keep the same style


Am 06.01.2014 11:21, schrieb Laurent Vivier:
> 
>> Le 6 janvier 2014 à 10:14, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 6 January 2014 08:45, Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Le 6 janvier 2014 à 02:57, André Hentschel <nerv@dawncrow.de> a écrit :
>> >> diff --git a/linux-user/syscall_defs.h b/linux-user/syscall_defs.h
>> >> index cf08db5..b36f99c 100644
>> >> --- a/linux-user/syscall_defs.h
>> >> +++ b/linux-user/syscall_defs.h
>> >> @@ -27,6 +27,9 @@
>> >> #define SOCKOP_getsockopt 15
>> >> #define SOCKOP_sendmsg 16
>> >> #define SOCKOP_recvmsg 17
>> >> +#define SOCKOP_accept4 18
>> >> +#define SOCKOP_recvmmsg 19
>> >> +#define SOCKOP_sendmmsg 20
>> >
>> > Don't add these both defines here as they are not used in this patch.
>>
>> It doesn't seem that unreasonable to add them. We add things
>> to the main syscall number #define list even if we aren't
>> actually implementing them, for example.
> 
> IMHO, you should not : if you implement these syscalls and then revert this patch (because it is broken, for instance), you will break the build. The defines must come with the implementation.

good point for removing them and add them separatly.