From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:27:16 -0600 Message-ID: <87tvvc77nf.fsf@xmission.com> References: <1516623798-25001-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <1516623798-25001-2-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <878tcp8umz.fsf@xmission.com> <20180123101446.GP22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180123101446.GP22781-M5GwZQ6tE7x5pKCnmE3YQBJ8xKzm50AiAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org> (Dave Martin's message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:14:48 +0000") Sender: linux-api-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Dave Martin Cc: linux-arch-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-api-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Will Deacon , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Dave Martin 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:56724 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752065AbeAWS2R (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Jan 2018 13:28:17 -0500 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) References: <1516623798-25001-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <1516623798-25001-2-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <878tcp8umz.fsf@xmission.com> <20180123101446.GP22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:27:16 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20180123101446.GP22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (Dave Martin's message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:14:48 +0000") Message-ID: <87tvvc77nf.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Dave Martin Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Will Deacon , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Message-ID: <20180123182716.CdSHI_ZZbPhARx_6IiCZywj_aENKcxCGiHSLP_qdIUU@z> Dave Martin 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:27:16 -0600 Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE In-Reply-To: <20180123101446.GP22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> (Dave Martin's message of "Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:14:48 +0000") References: <1516623798-25001-1-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <1516623798-25001-2-git-send-email-Dave.Martin@arm.com> <878tcp8umz.fsf@xmission.com> <20180123101446.GP22781@e103592.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <87tvvc77nf.fsf@xmission.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Dave Martin 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