From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43619)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <laurent@vivier.eu>) id 1aJePj-0005BZ-6B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 04:41:56 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <laurent@vivier.eu>) id 1aJePf-0004R3-N2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 04:41:54 -0500
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.13]:56980)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <laurent@vivier.eu>) id 1aJePf-0004Qx-DV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 14 Jan 2016 04:41:51 -0500
References: <1452752664-11818-1-git-send-email-chengang@emindsoft.com.cn>
	<5697593A.5020304@vivier.eu> <569763EF.3010702@emindsoft.com.cn>
	<56976603.3090805@vivier.eu> <56976C49.20705@emindsoft.com.cn>
From: Laurent Vivier <laurent@vivier.eu>
Message-ID: <56976D45.8060306@vivier.eu>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2016 10:41:25 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56976C49.20705@emindsoft.com.cn>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-user/syscall.c: Let lv always match
 val in do_getsockopt()
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Chen Gang <chengang@emindsoft.com.cn>, riku.voipio@iki.fi
Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, rth@twiddle.net



Le 14/01/2016 10:37, Chen Gang a écrit :
> 
> On 2016年01月14日 17:10, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>
>> Le 14/01/2016 10:01, Chen Gang a écrit :
>>>
>>> I am not quite sure whether kernel always returns sizeof(int) (I guess,
>>> it should be).
>>
>> it can be 1 only if len is 1, but this is managed below.
>>
> 
> Excuse me, I do not quite understand your meaning.
> 
> For me, if we are sure lv is always 4 for SO_TYPE, we don't need this
> patch.
> 
> If lv may be 1 for SO_TYPE (it means val >> 8 may be zero), after call
> host_to_target_sock_type, val >> 8 may be non-zero, theoretically. In
> this case, we need modify lv to 4.
> 
>>> For me, if you are sure, we can skip this patch.
>>
>> Does it fix something ?
>>
> 
> It is only theoretical, not real world, at present.

So I think we can skip it.

Laurent