On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 04:34:35AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > A similar commit v4.16-rc1~159^2~37 > ("signal/arm: Document conflicts with SI_USER and SIGFPE") must have > introduced a similar ABI regression to compat arm.
So, could you explain how can this change cause a regression? +#define FPE_FIXME 0 - vfp_raise_sigfpe(0, regs); + vfp_raise_sigfpe(FPE_FIXME, regs); I think you're talking garbage here - look at the damned change. It subsitutes a definition for a constant, and vfp_raise_sigfpe() ends up receiving exactly the same value bother before and after the change. The change is rather incomplete though because it should have also changed: int si_code = 0; as well. So, the commit log is accurate in this case: it _is_ about documenting the conflicting cases between SI_USER and SIGFPE and that bit of the change has no ABI effect. What does slightly annoy me is the creation of uapi/asm/siginfo.h to contain a definition that _isn't_ to be exposed as part of the UAPI. If it's not part of the UAPI, it doesn't belong in a UAPI header, period. In any case, I don't think that is exposed to userspace. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 8.8Mbps down 630kbps up According to speedtest.net: 8.21Mbps down 510kbps up