From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/20] siginfo cleanups for x86 Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:10:06 +0200 Message-ID: <87zhweh5qp.fsf@xmission.com> References: <87y3bzk6yv.fsf@xmission.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: In-Reply-To: (Thomas Gleixner's message of "Tue, 18 Sep 2018 22:55:08 +0200 (CEST)") Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org Thomas Gleixner writes: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> I have been slowly going thought and reworking the arch specific >> functions that generate siginfo. The problems I have been addressing >> is that using siginfo directly is error prone. Using siginfo directly >> makes it easy to leave fields initialized, and get confused about >> which fields need to be filled in. >> >> To address this I have added a series of helper functions to >> kernel/signal.c, that are specific to exactly one use of struct siginfo >> and take the parameters they need. >> >> To use these functions the x86 signal handling needs some cleanups but >> the net result appears to be less code that is easier to follow. >> >> If while looking over these patches you see anything please let me know. > > Only nitpicks. > >> I don't think I missed something but to err is human. > > I went through the changes a couple of times, but failed to spot > something. Was pleasure to read that set! > >> Likewise if you would like to merge these patches via the tip tree >> let me know. Otherwise after the review is complete I plan on merging >> these into my siginfo tree. At this point I believe all of the >> prerequisite patches are merged so it should not make a difference. > > Works either way. Ingo? If I manage to get through all of the architecture specific code I can shrink the in-kernel version of struct siginfo. So there is a slight advantage to having it all in my tree. But worst case I just have to wait another cycle which doesn't look like a particularly long wait at this point. Eric From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]:51145 "EHLO out01.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726821AbeISCo4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 22:44:56 -0400 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) References: <87y3bzk6yv.fsf@xmission.com> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 23:10:06 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Thomas Gleixner's message of "Tue, 18 Sep 2018 22:55:08 +0200 (CEST)") Message-ID: <87zhweh5qp.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [REVIEW][PATCH 00/20] siginfo cleanups for x86 Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , x86@kernel.org Message-ID: <20180918211006.BJbKfQt9ZVNiUu5HzmPNtPOTYZZYAxdVbUvk2O4iy7Y@z> Thomas Gleixner writes: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> I have been slowly going thought and reworking the arch specific >> functions that generate siginfo. The problems I have been addressing >> is that using siginfo directly is error prone. Using siginfo directly >> makes it easy to leave fields initialized, and get confused about >> which fields need to be filled in. >> >> To address this I have added a series of helper functions to >> kernel/signal.c, that are specific to exactly one use of struct siginfo >> and take the parameters they need. >> >> To use these functions the x86 signal handling needs some cleanups but >> the net result appears to be less code that is easier to follow. >> >> If while looking over these patches you see anything please let me know. > > Only nitpicks. > >> I don't think I missed something but to err is human. > > I went through the changes a couple of times, but failed to spot > something. Was pleasure to read that set! > >> Likewise if you would like to merge these patches via the tip tree >> let me know. Otherwise after the review is complete I plan on merging >> these into my siginfo tree. At this point I believe all of the >> prerequisite patches are merged so it should not make a difference. > > Works either way. Ingo? If I manage to get through all of the architecture specific code I can shrink the in-kernel version of struct siginfo. So there is a slight advantage to having it all in my tree. But worst case I just have to wait another cycle which doesn't look like a particularly long wait at this point. Eric