Hi Arnd, On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 10:32:55 +0200 Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Thanks
> It's a bit inconsistent though since put_compat_sigset() has the
> comments in separate lines, as of commit 89976005536c
> ("include/linux/compat.h: mark expected switch fall-throughs").
OK, I wasn't aware of that one.
> I don't care either way, but it might be better to do it the same way
> for both.
Indeed, I will redo it that way (with your Acked-by).
> We could also consider just getting rid of put_compat_sigset() and
> get_compat_sigset() but replacing them with a combined
> put_sigset()/get_sigset() that does the right thing for both native
> and compat tasks. This lets us kill a couple of compat system
> calls that only differ in their sigset_t argument. On little-endian
> systems (which are the vast majority of the installed base), there
> is no difference anyway there is no overhead anyway since
> native and compat sigset_t are identical.
That sounds like a bigger patch that would require some real testing :-)
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
pgpPGfJkTU1uO.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
