From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5D5C2D0A3 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:36:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B339420759 for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:36:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1731660AbgKDRgW (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2020 12:36:22 -0500 Received: from out03.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.233]:45744 "EHLO out03.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730254AbgKDRgV (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Nov 2020 12:36:21 -0500 Received: from in01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.51]) by out03.mta.xmission.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (Exim 4.93) (envelope-from ) id 1kaMhi-00APEI-C1; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 10:36:14 -0700 Received: from ip68-227-160-95.om.om.cox.net ([68.227.160.95] helo=x220.xmission.com) by in01.mta.xmission.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.87) (envelope-from ) id 1kaMhh-0005Qj-Ij; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 10:36:14 -0700 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Peter Collingbourne , Evgenii Stepanov , Kostya Serebryany , Vincenzo Frascino , Dave Martin , Will Deacon , Oleg Nesterov , "James E.J. Bottomley" , Linux ARM , Kevin Brodsky , Andrey Konovalov , Richard Henderson , linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Helge Deller , David Spickett References: <7e26600459cb08c5016611b37fe88c23098b40eb.1604376407.git.pcc@google.com> <87a6vx6p11.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> <20201104172447.GF28902@gaia> Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2020 11:36:10 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20201104172447.GF28902@gaia> (Catalin Marinas's message of "Wed, 4 Nov 2020 17:24:48 +0000") Message-ID: <87wnz158j9.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-XM-SPF: eid=1kaMhh-0005Qj-Ij;;;mid=<87wnz158j9.fsf@x220.int.ebiederm.org>;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=68.227.160.95;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-XM-AID: U2FsdGVkX19wDmSuxLiGAq/37pZxeGaX+VODqDFxCx0= X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 68.227.160.95 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 1/8] parisc: Drop parisc special case for __sighandler_t X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Thu, 05 May 2016 13:38:54 -0600) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on in01.mta.xmission.com) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-api@vger.kernel.org Catalin Marinas writes: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:54:34AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Peter Collingbourne writes: >> > From: Helge Deller >> > >> > I believe we can and *should* drop this parisc-specific typedef for >> > __sighandler_t when compiling a 64-bit kernel. The reasons: >> > >> > 1. We don't have a 64-bit userspace yet, so nothing (on userspace side) >> > can break. >> > >> > 2. Inside the Linux kernel, this is only used in kernel/signal.c, in >> > function kernel_sigaction() where the signal handler is compared against >> > SIG_IGN. SIG_IGN is defined as (__sighandler_t)1), so only the pointers >> > are compared. >> > >> > 3. Even when a 64-bit userspace gets added at some point, I think >> > __sighandler_t should be defined what it is: a function pointer struct. >> > >> > I compiled kernel/signal.c with and without the patch, and the produced code >> > is identical in both cases. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Helge Deller >> > Reviewed-by: Peter Collingbourne >> > Link: >> > https://linux-review.googlesource.com/id/I21c43f21b264f339e3aa395626af838646f62d97 >> >> Peter as you have sent this, this also needs your Signed-off-by. >> >> Otherwise this looks reasonable to me. >> Acked-by: "Eric W. Biederman" >> >> While the final bits look like they are still under discussion it looks >> like the preceding cleanups are pretty solid at this point. > > Minor nits, unless you nak the whole approach of SA_FAULTFLAGS and > SA_UNSUPPORTED ;) (it looks a bit complicated to me but I don't have a > better idea for a generic implementation). > >> Any chance we can get the cleanups into a tree in linux-next so that >> the discussion can focus on the core parts of this work? >> >> Perhaps I should pick up the clenaups? > > However you prefer (I usually start queuing patches at -rc3). If you > pick them up, please provide a stable branch somewhere so that we can > add the others on top. I just want to make certain the cleanups don't get lost in the shuffle. If we are almost there then I will focus my energy on reviewing the patches and make certain there isn't something important that has been overlooked. I don't expect there is. Eric