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~
