From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lqkmf-0001uv-Cz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:06:25 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Lqkme-0001ui-Lg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:06:24 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56709 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lqkme-0001uf-E0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:06:24 -0400
Received: from lechat.rtp-net.org ([88.191.19.38]:45751)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org>) id 1Lqkmd-0005Da-Uo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 06 Apr 2009 05:06:24 -0400
Received: from lechat.rtp-net.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by lechat.rtp-net.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6478E10087
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon,  6 Apr 2009 11:06:22 +0200 (CEST)
From: Arnaud Patard (Rtp) <arnaud.patard@rtp-net.org>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 04/10] fix IPCOP_sem* and implement sem*
References: <cover.1238963514.git.riku.voipio@iki.fi>
	<cover.1238963514.git.riku.voipio@iki.fi>
	<e112383974c5821846833265192d0be5c69b0c6f.1238963514.git.riku.voipio@iki.fi>
Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:06:22 +0200
In-Reply-To: <e112383974c5821846833265192d0be5c69b0c6f.1238963514.git.riku.voipio@iki.fi>
	(riku voipio's message of "Sun\, 5 Apr 2009 23\:59\:20 +0300")
Message-ID: <87ljqei229.fsf@lechat.rtp-net.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

riku.voipio@iki.fi writes:

Hi,

> -static inline abi_long do_semctl(int first, int second, int third,
> -                                 abi_long ptr)
> +static inline abi_long do_semctl(int semid, int semnum, int cmd,
> +                                 union target_semun target_su)
>  {
>      union semun arg;
>      struct semid_ds dsarg;
> -    int cmd = third&0xff;
> -    abi_long ret = 0;
> +    unsigned short *array;
> +    struct seminfo seminfo;
> +    abi_long ret = -TARGET_EINVAL;
> +    abi_long err;
> +    cmd &= 0xff;
>  
>      switch( cmd ) {

I'm wondering if it's a good way of handling the IPC_64 flag. afaik this
flag is set to indicate that we're using newer ipc version, so if it's
set, the code may use things like 32bit uids.
Taking this into account, is it possible that falling back to the old
*ctl versions is breaking some applications ?

Thanks,
Arnaud