On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 06/23/2017, 09:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> >> index f32b42e8725d..5bb2fd4674e7 100644
> >> ---
On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 06/23/2017, 09:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> >> index f32b42e8725d..5bb2fd4674e7 100644
> >> ---
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:02:31PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 06/23/2017, 09:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> >> index f32b42e8725d..5bb2fd4674e7 100644
> >> ---
On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 02:02:31PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 06/23/2017, 09:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> >> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> >> index f32b42e8725d..5bb2fd4674e7 100644
> >> ---
On 06/23/2017, 09:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
>> index f32b42e8725d..5bb2fd4674e7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
>> @@
On 06/23/2017, 09:51 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
>> index f32b42e8725d..5bb2fd4674e7 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
>> @@
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> index f32b42e8725d..5bb2fd4674e7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> @@ -48,20 +48,10 @@ do {
On Wed, 21 Jun 2017, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> index f32b42e8725d..5bb2fd4674e7 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/futex.h
> @@ -48,20 +48,10 @@ do {
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
> and comparison of the result.
>
> Remove this duplication and leave up to the arches only the
On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 01:53:18PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
> and comparison of the result.
>
> Remove this duplication and leave up to the arches only the
There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
and comparison of the result.
Remove this duplication and leave up to the arches only the needed
assembly which is now in arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser.
This
There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
and comparison of the result.
Remove this duplication and leave up to the arches only the needed
assembly which is now in arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser.
This
On Thu, 25 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:11:33PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > > There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> > > >
On Thu, 25 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:11:33PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > > There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> > > >
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:11:33PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> > > futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:11:33PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, 15 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > > There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> > > futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok
On Mon, 15 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> > futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
> > and comparison of the result.
> >
> >
On Mon, 15 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> Hi Jiri,
>
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> > futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
> > and comparison of the result.
> >
> >
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:01:29AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Whilst I think this is a good idea, the code in question actually results
> > in undefined behaviour per the C spec and is reported by UBSAN.
>
> Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:01:29AM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Whilst I think this is a good idea, the code in question actually results
> > in undefined behaviour per the C spec and is reported by UBSAN.
>
> Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st
On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Whilst I think this is a good idea, the code in question actually results
> in undefined behaviour per the C spec and is reported by UBSAN.
Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
sent a long time ago to fix that up too.
On 05/15/2017, 03:16 PM, Will Deacon wrote:
> Whilst I think this is a good idea, the code in question actually results
> in undefined behaviour per the C spec and is reported by UBSAN.
Hi, yes, I know -- this patch was the 1st from the series of 3 which I
sent a long time ago to fix that up too.
Hi Jiri,
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
> and comparison of the result.
>
> Remove this duplication and leave up to the arches only
Hi Jiri,
On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 03:07:42PM +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
> futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
> and comparison of the result.
>
> Remove this duplication and leave up to the arches only
There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
and comparison of the result.
Remove this duplication and leave up to the arches only the needed
assembly which is now in arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser.
Note that
There is code duplicated over all architecture's headers for
futex_atomic_op_inuser. Namely op decoding, access_ok check for uaddr,
and comparison of the result.
Remove this duplication and leave up to the arches only the needed
assembly which is now in arch_futex_atomic_op_inuser.
Note that
26 matches
Mail list logo
