On 6/29/21 6:53 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2021 at 20:32, Richard Henderson
<richard.hender...@linaro.org> wrote:

Split out a helper function to test for a v2 signal frame.

Cc: qemu-...@nongnu.org
Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
---
  linux-user/arm/signal.c | 13 +++++++++----
  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/linux-user/arm/signal.c b/linux-user/arm/signal.c
index 32b68ee302..cb65623965 100644
--- a/linux-user/arm/signal.c
+++ b/linux-user/arm/signal.c
@@ -165,6 +165,11 @@ static inline int valid_user_regs(CPUARMState *regs)
      return 1;
  }

+static bool v2_frame(void)
+{
+    return get_osversion() >= 0x020612;
+}

Not sure how much we care about supporting claiming to be a 15-year-old
kernel any more (especially since we set UNAME_MINIMUM_RELEASE to 2.6.32...)
so it's awfully tempting to just blow away the v1 frame support instead...

Anyway
Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org>

I hadn't noticed the minimum release setting. Yes, I think it would be better to remove the v1 support instead of bodging around it like this.


r~

Reply via email to