Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE

[Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>]

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?

Cheers
---Dave