From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
Cc: linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
Russell King <linux-I+IVW8TIWO2tmTQ+vhA3Yw@public.gmane.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>,
linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:27:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tvvc77nf.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180123101446.GP22781-M5GwZQ6tE7x5pKCnmE3YQBJ8xKzm50AiAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org> (Dave Martin's message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:14:48 +0000")
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:13:08PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> > diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
>> > index e447283..77edb00 100644
>> > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
>> > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
>> > @@ -193,7 +193,8 @@ typedef struct siginfo {
>> > #define FPE_FLTRES 6 /* floating point inexact result */
>> > #define FPE_FLTINV 7 /* floating point invalid operation */
>> > #define FPE_FLTSUB 8 /* subscript out of range */
>> > -#define NSIGFPE 8
>> > +#define FPE_UNKNOWN 9 /* undiagnosed floating-point exception */
>> > +#define NSIGFPE 9
>>
>> Minor nit here.
>>
>> At least before this is final I would really appreciate if you could
>> rebase this on top of my unificiation of siginfo.h that I posted on
>> linux-arch and is in my siginfo-next branch.
>>
>> As that already pushes NSIGFPE up to 13.
>>
>> Which would make this patch change NSIGFPE to 14 and allocate the number
>> 14 for FPE_UNKNOWN
>
> My bad -- I hadn't looked in detail at the whole series.
>
> However, the purpose of this as an RFC was to get feedback on whether
> adding FPE_UNKNOWN is considered acceptable at all from an API
> perspective -- the precise number doesn't matter for that discussion.
>
> Do you have any view on this?
That seems as good a solution as any too me. It is reality and it
happens in the code and there are several places of the same form I
would use it, just to get rid of the FPE_FIXME.
Eric
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:27:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tvvc77nf.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
Message-ID: <20180123182716.CdSHI_ZZbPhARx_6IiCZywj_aENKcxCGiHSLP_qdIUU@z> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180123101446.GP22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (Dave Martin's message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:14:48 +0000")
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:13:08PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> > diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
>> > index e447283..77edb00 100644
>> > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
>> > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
>> > @@ -193,7 +193,8 @@ typedef struct siginfo {
>> > #define FPE_FLTRES 6 /* floating point inexact result */
>> > #define FPE_FLTINV 7 /* floating point invalid operation */
>> > #define FPE_FLTSUB 8 /* subscript out of range */
>> > -#define NSIGFPE 8
>> > +#define FPE_UNKNOWN 9 /* undiagnosed floating-point exception */
>> > +#define NSIGFPE 9
>>
>> Minor nit here.
>>
>> At least before this is final I would really appreciate if you could
>> rebase this on top of my unificiation of siginfo.h that I posted on
>> linux-arch and is in my siginfo-next branch.
>>
>> As that already pushes NSIGFPE up to 13.
>>
>> Which would make this patch change NSIGFPE to 14 and allocate the number
>> 14 for FPE_UNKNOWN
>
> My bad -- I hadn't looked in detail at the whole series.
>
> However, the purpose of this as an RFC was to get feedback on whether
> adding FPE_UNKNOWN is considered acceptable at all from an API
> perspective -- the precise number doesn't matter for that discussion.
>
> Do you have any view on this?
That seems as good a solution as any too me. It is reality and it
happens in the code and there are several places of the same form I
would use it, just to get rid of the FPE_FIXME.
Eric
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:27:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87tvvc77nf.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180123101446.GP22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (Dave Martin's message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:14:48 +0000")
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:13:08PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>
>> > diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
>> > index e447283..77edb00 100644
>> > --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
>> > +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h
>> > @@ -193,7 +193,8 @@ typedef struct siginfo {
>> > #define FPE_FLTRES 6 /* floating point inexact result */
>> > #define FPE_FLTINV 7 /* floating point invalid operation */
>> > #define FPE_FLTSUB 8 /* subscript out of range */
>> > -#define NSIGFPE 8
>> > +#define FPE_UNKNOWN 9 /* undiagnosed floating-point exception */
>> > +#define NSIGFPE 9
>>
>> Minor nit here.
>>
>> At least before this is final I would really appreciate if you could
>> rebase this on top of my unificiation of siginfo.h that I posted on
>> linux-arch and is in my siginfo-next branch.
>>
>> As that already pushes NSIGFPE up to 13.
>>
>> Which would make this patch change NSIGFPE to 14 and allocate the number
>> 14 for FPE_UNKNOWN
>
> My bad -- I hadn't looked in detail at the whole series.
>
> However, the purpose of this as an RFC was to get feedback on whether
> adding FPE_UNKNOWN is considered acceptable at all from an API
> perspective -- the precise number doesn't matter for that discussion.
>
> Do you have any view on this?
That seems as good a solution as any too me. It is reality and it
happens in the code and there are several places of the same form I
would use it, just to get rid of the FPE_FIXME.
Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-23 18:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-22 12:23 [RFC PATCH 0/2] arm64: Fix invalid si_codes for fault signals Dave Martin
2018-01-22 12:23 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-22 12:23 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-22 12:23 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE Dave Martin
2018-01-22 12:23 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-22 21:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-01-22 21:13 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-01-23 10:14 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-23 10:14 ` Dave Martin
[not found] ` <20180123101446.GP22781-M5GwZQ6tE7x5pKCnmE3YQBJ8xKzm50AiAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
2018-01-23 18:27 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2018-01-23 18:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-01-23 18:27 ` Eric W. Biederman
[not found] ` <87tvvc77nf.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
2018-01-23 18:29 ` David Miller
2018-01-23 18:29 ` David Miller
2018-01-23 18:29 ` David Miller
2018-01-23 19:44 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-01-23 19:44 ` Eric W. Biederman
[not found] ` <87lggo7430.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
2018-01-24 9:53 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-24 9:53 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-24 9:53 ` Dave Martin
[not found] ` <878tcp8umz.fsf-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>
2018-01-24 10:57 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-24 10:57 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-24 10:57 ` Dave Martin
[not found] ` <20180124105704.GD5862-M5GwZQ6tE7x5pKCnmE3YQBJ8xKzm50AiAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
2018-01-24 16:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-01-24 16:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-01-24 16:47 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-01-24 17:12 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-24 17:12 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-24 17:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
2018-01-24 17:17 ` Eric W. Biederman
[not found] ` <1516623798-25001-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org>
2018-01-22 12:23 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: signal: Ensure si_code is valid for all fault signals Dave Martin
2018-01-22 12:23 ` Dave Martin
2018-01-22 12:23 ` Dave Martin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87tvvc77nf.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm-as9lmozglivwk0htik3j/w@public.gmane.org \
--cc=Dave.Martin-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-I+IVW8TIWO2tmTQ+vhA3Yw@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org \
--cc=will.deacon-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.