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 Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FBD3C02188 for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 11:20:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YhQvF5lXLz2yVG; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:20:25 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=194.107.17.57 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1737976825; cv=none; b=Z6M6a3PbAzyonQeB1Bh11NVKdgOCS7A3wvHznNn4Zpn6cNGUcxGDjH3ZmWUeOFXROJlLi+ua70HJKr5vkXX/ghmMFDhSq9T7tB7XK9XfOCVXavqhsiF35+kMlVjwdDifBNdrz4wyOdqwSwFaN55pxLgKaJpLQs7m0e2WlRfcWl+waXhEojV5I1cfJLlPBQ5YfZBgs1VXJ28QS6krA51sNnS5GZ0BKGquPlMyQh9wfwMlEK04c5gzNrWwkHFx8bzKwq44TI19uy1enF4eBz7oDFYO8cvW2jjeJnglujcQbzg84d/UkmhiupjzqHesd70u+fD+KVYigOPg6qxI+D5U/w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=lists.ozlabs.org; s=201707; t=1737976825; c=relaxed/relaxed; bh=Id0dzuNOOGjop0865qqU7sm20SXdLKEsq53Fv3o/W+c=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=Wwrqgzy1D31bgJ8Je2ZEt6NqA3AZut9gO5gOv0dr5mxrqHkYJKlX0mPmAL0wdFx2ubWLqmNDtAYEJGB0nEM5mSNHfZ3DH2oBhWJEbbh3sBqcA+pST9dYBxw+7K037cz1gBBaS33w5WsZJNG8XWILY9bQOqCNzU1slPIk3F4ExqZKXziTsV3JNbc4ZQ+tvGKvyxveEpeM1jFFfNxrCNcAHU3d2h1j53C3nJUy5e7lFuVKeviInB6UlEXNOErazTC0POdbC72ZWFjgHjCivaktFtqXAniAmZevVZ20WAighxwJnsBYQscY90oWk3V+LoFgYV832S+uGE2tXR7XI73jhg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=strace.io; spf=pass (client-ip=194.107.17.57; helo=vmicros1.altlinux.org; envelope-from=ldv@altlinux.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) smtp.mailfrom=altlinux.org Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=strace.io Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=altlinux.org (client-ip=194.107.17.57; helo=vmicros1.altlinux.org; envelope-from=ldv@altlinux.org; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from vmicros1.altlinux.org (vmicros1.altlinux.org [194.107.17.57]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4YhQvF0VW5z2xJT for ; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 22:20:25 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from mua.local.altlinux.org (mua.local.altlinux.org [192.168.1.14]) by vmicros1.altlinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0E3972C8CC; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 14:20:23 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mua.local.altlinux.org (Postfix, from userid 508) id 8F3167CCB3A; Mon, 27 Jan 2025 13:20:23 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2025 13:20:23 +0200 From: "Dmitry V. Levin" To: Christophe Leroy Cc: Alexey Gladkov , Oleg Nesterov , Michael Ellerman , Eugene Syromyatnikov , Mike Frysinger , Renzo Davoli , Davide Berardi , strace-devel@lists.strace.io, Madhavan Srinivasan , Nicholas Piggin , Naveen N Rao , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] powerpc: properly negate error in syscall_set_return_value() Message-ID: <20250127112023.GB29522@strace.io> References: <20250113171054.GA589@strace.io> <6558110c-c2cb-4aa3-9472-b3496f71ebb8@csgroup.eu> <20250114170400.GB11820@strace.io> <20250123182815.GA20994@strace.io> <86079b5c-e124-489b-8136-05ae5700cb61@csgroup.eu> X-Mailing-List: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org List-Id: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Archive: , List-Subscribe: , , List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <86079b5c-e124-489b-8136-05ae5700cb61@csgroup.eu> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 11:07:21PM +0100, Christophe Leroy wrote: [...] > To add a bit more to the confusion, Looks like there is no end to it: static inline long regs_return_value(struct pt_regs *regs) { if (trap_is_scv(regs)) return regs->gpr[3]; if (is_syscall_success(regs)) return regs->gpr[3]; else return -regs->gpr[3]; } static inline void regs_set_return_value(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned long rc) { regs->gpr[3] = rc; } This doesn't look consistent, does it? -- ldv