From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56163) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VdNIR-0006HB-Kd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:46:39 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VdNIN-0004Sn-7Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:46:35 -0500 Received: from static.88-198-71-155.clients.your-server.de ([88.198.71.155]:46661 helo=socrates.bennee.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VdNIN-0004SU-1O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 04 Nov 2013 11:46:31 -0500 References: <1383140792-111139-1-git-send-email-petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: <1383140792-111139-1-git-send-email-petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com> Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2013 16:46:24 +0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 1/2] linux-user: create target_structsheader to place ipc_perm and shmid_dss List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Petar Jovanovic Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, riku.voipio@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, petar.jovanovic@imgtec.com, afaerber@suse.de, aurelien@aurel32.net petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com writes: > From: Petar Jovanovic > > Creating target_structs header in linux-user/$arch/ and making > target_ipc_perm and target_shmid_ds its first inhabitants. > The struct defintions may/should be further fine-tuned by arch maintainers. > > Signed-off-by: Petar Jovanovic > --- > v3: > - add GNU licence to the new header files. > > v2: > - target_struct headers have been created and the patch has been split into > two separate patches. > > linux-user/aarch64/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/alpha/target_structs.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/arm/target_structs.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/cris/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/i386/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/m68k/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/microblaze/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/mips/target_structs.h | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/mips64/target_cpu.h | 18 ++++++++ > linux-user/mips64/target_structs.h | 2 + > linux-user/openrisc/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/ppc/target_structs.h | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/qemu.h | 1 + > linux-user/s390x/target_structs.h | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/sh4/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/sparc/target_structs.h | 63 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/sparc64/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/syscall.c | 76 ++++++++++++-------------------- > linux-user/unicore32/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > linux-user/x86_64/target_structs.h | 58 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 20 files changed, 963 insertions(+), 48 deletions(-) There is an awful lot of similarity between a lot of the structures while not being totally identical. Given the syscall munging is common is there not an argument for having a common header for this case? -- Alex Bennée