From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 13:08:14 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/1] futex: remove duplicated code and fix UB In-Reply-To: <80af8d81-4522-de2d-8289-1ab46565505a@suse.cz> References: <20170621115318.2781-1-jslaby@suse.cz> <80af8d81-4522-de2d-8289-1ab46565505a@suse.cz> Message-ID: <20170626120814.GF1691@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:02:31PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 06/23/2017, 09:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote: > >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h > >> index f32b42e8725d..5bb2fd4674e7 100644 > >> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h > >> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h > >> @@ -48,20 +48,10 @@ do { \ > >> } while (0) > >> > >> static inline int > >> -futex_atomic_op_inuser(unsigned int encoded_op, u32 __user *uaddr) > > > > That unsigned int seems to be a change from the arm64 tree in next. It's > > not upstream and it'll cause a (easy to resolve) conflict. > > Ugh, I thought the arm64 is in upstream already. Note that this patch > just takes what is in this arm64 fix and makes it effective for all > architectures. So I will wait with v2 until it merges upstream. > > So, Will, will you incorporate Thomas' comments into your arm64 fix? I wasn't planning to (it's already queued and I think they're just cosmetic changes). The easiest thing is probably for you to make the changes in the generic version when you post v2. Will