From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [103.22.144.67])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3wybcz6046zDr3x
 for <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:33:23 +1000 (AEST)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:33:22 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@vger.kernel.org>, Linux Kernel
 Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Martin K. Petersen"
 <martin.petersen@oracle.com>, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
 Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>, PowerPC
 <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree
Message-ID: <20170629073322.1b007407@canb.auug.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <2c4503f8-8284-2578-3622-03529cc8bffe@kernel.dk>
References: <20170628180456.30cb9242@canb.auug.org.au>
 <664cc88d-18a5-18c4-5bce-4d4352d15f4f@kernel.dk>
 <2bd17edb-4a5b-5bf8-7074-1156a5249325@kernel.dk>
 <2c4503f8-8284-2578-3622-03529cc8bffe@kernel.dk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List <linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/options/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.ozlabs.org/pipermail/linuxppc-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev>,
 <mailto:linuxppc-dev-request@lists.ozlabs.org?subject=subscribe>

Hi Jens,

On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:11:32 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 06/28/2017 08:01 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > But put_user() is fine? Just checking here, since the change adds
> > both a u64 put and get user.  

Yes, put_user is fine (it does 2 4 byte moves.  The asm is there to do
the 8 byte get_user, but the surrounding C code uses an unsigned long
for the destination in all cases (some other arches do the same).  I
don't remember why it is like that.

> I just changed all 4, at least that provides some symmetry in how
> we copy things in and out for that set of fcntls.

OK, thanks.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell