From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51400) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aA2iU-00088l-Dz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:37:35 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aA2iP-0003Jy-J6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:37:34 -0500 Received: from smtpbg302.qq.com ([184.105.206.27]:36145) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aA2iP-0003Jm-0v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:37:29 -0500 Message-ID: <56747D48.3090801@qq.com> Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2015 05:40:24 +0800 From: Chen Gang MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <5673A718.40103@emindsoft.com.cn> <5673D3C4.8020308@vivier.eu> In-Reply-To: <5673D3C4.8020308@vivier.eu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-user/syscall.c: Notice about lock bitmask translation for fcntl List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laurent Vivier , Chen Gang , riku.voipio@iki.fi Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-devel , Richard Henderson On 12/18/15 17:37, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > Le 18/12/2015 07:26, Chen Gang a écrit : >> >> For fcntl, it always needs to notice about it, just like do_fcntl() has >> done, or it will cause issue (e.g. alpha host run i386 guest). >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Gang >> --- >> linux-user/syscall.c | 18 ++++++++++++------ >> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/linux-user/syscall.c b/linux-user/syscall.c >> index 0f8adeb..1a60e6f 100644 >> --- a/linux-user/syscall.c >> +++ b/linux-user/syscall.c >> @@ -9007,7 +9007,8 @@ abi_long do_syscall(void *cpu_env, int num, abi_long arg1, >> if (((CPUARMState *)cpu_env)->eabi) { >> if (!lock_user_struct(VERIFY_READ, target_efl, arg3, 1)) >> goto efault; >> - fl.l_type = tswap16(target_efl->l_type); >> + fl.l_type = target_to_host_bitmask(tswap16(target_fl->l_type), >> + flock_tbl); >> fl.l_whence = tswap16(target_efl->l_whence); >> fl.l_start = tswap64(target_efl->l_start); >> fl.l_len = tswap64(target_efl->l_len); >> @@ -9018,7 +9019,8 @@ abi_long do_syscall(void *cpu_env, int num, abi_long arg1, >> { >> if (!lock_user_struct(VERIFY_READ, target_fl, arg3, 1)) >> goto efault; >> - fl.l_type = tswap16(target_fl->l_type); >> + fl.l_type = target_to_host_bitmask(tswap16(target_fl->l_type), >> + flock_tbl); >> fl.l_whence = tswap16(target_fl->l_whence); >> fl.l_start = tswap64(target_fl->l_start); >> fl.l_len = tswap64(target_fl->l_len); >> @@ -9031,7 +9033,8 @@ abi_long do_syscall(void *cpu_env, int num, abi_long arg1, >> if (((CPUARMState *)cpu_env)->eabi) { >> if (!lock_user_struct(VERIFY_WRITE, target_efl, arg3, 0)) >> goto efault; >> - target_efl->l_type = tswap16(fl.l_type); >> + target_efl->l_type = host_to_target_bitmask( >> + tswap16(fl.l_type), flock_tbl); >> target_efl->l_whence = tswap16(fl.l_whence); >> target_efl->l_start = tswap64(fl.l_start); >> target_efl->l_len = tswap64(fl.l_len); >> @@ -9042,7 +9045,8 @@ abi_long do_syscall(void *cpu_env, int num, abi_long arg1, >> { >> if (!lock_user_struct(VERIFY_WRITE, target_fl, arg3, 0)) >> goto efault; >> - target_fl->l_type = tswap16(fl.l_type); >> + target_fl->l_type = host_to_target_bitmask( >> + tswap16(fl.l_type), flock_tbl); >> target_fl->l_whence = tswap16(fl.l_whence); >> target_fl->l_start = tswap64(fl.l_start); >> target_fl->l_len = tswap64(fl.l_len); >> @@ -9058,7 +9062,8 @@ abi_long do_syscall(void *cpu_env, int num, abi_long arg1, >> if (((CPUARMState *)cpu_env)->eabi) { >> if (!lock_user_struct(VERIFY_READ, target_efl, arg3, 1)) >> goto efault; >> - fl.l_type = tswap16(target_efl->l_type); >> + fl.l_type = target_to_host_bitmask(tswap16(target_fl->l_type), >> + flock_tbl); >> fl.l_whence = tswap16(target_efl->l_whence); >> fl.l_start = tswap64(target_efl->l_start); >> fl.l_len = tswap64(target_efl->l_len); >> @@ -9069,7 +9074,8 @@ abi_long do_syscall(void *cpu_env, int num, abi_long arg1, >> { >> if (!lock_user_struct(VERIFY_READ, target_fl, arg3, 1)) >> goto efault; >> - fl.l_type = tswap16(target_fl->l_type); >> + fl.l_type = target_to_host_bitmask(tswap16(target_fl->l_type), >> + flock_tbl); >> fl.l_whence = tswap16(target_fl->l_whence); >> fl.l_start = tswap64(target_fl->l_start); >> fl.l_len = tswap64(target_fl->l_len); >> > > This patch looks good to me, except that script/checkpatch.pl complains > about "DOS line ending" and "line over 80 characters". > I did not get any script/checkpatch.pl complains, originally. Does my email client configuration is incorrect, then cause incorrect mail format? I guess not. The related reason is below. - I copy your full reply mail contents to a new file (diff.patch). - Remove all '> ' in vi editor (1,% s/^> //g) (so get the original patch contents). - ./script/checkpatch.pl diff.patch, it has no any complains. > Reviewed-by: Laurent Vivier > Thanks. -- Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed