ppc64 sys_ipc breakage in 2.6.34-rc2

2010-03-22 Thread Anton Blanchard
I chased down a fail on ppc64 on 2.6.34-rc2 where an application that uses shared memory was getting a SEGV. Commit baed7fc9b580bd3fb8252ff1d9b36eaf1f86b670 (Add generic sys_ipc wrapper) changed the second argument from an unsigned long to an int. When we call shmget the system call wrappers for

Re: ppc64 sys_ipc breakage in 2.6.34-rc2

2010-03-22 Thread Andreas Schwab
Anton Blanchard an...@samba.org writes: diff --git a/ipc/syscall.c b/ipc/syscall.c index 355a3da..1d6f53f 100644 --- a/ipc/syscall.c +++ b/ipc/syscall.c @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ #include linux/syscalls.h #include linux/uaccess.h -SYSCALL_DEFINE6(ipc, unsigned int, call, int, first, int,

Re: ppc64 sys_ipc breakage in 2.6.34-rc2

2010-03-22 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Andreas Schwab wrote: ipc/syscall.c:17: error: conflicting types for ‘sys_ipc’ include/linux/syscalls.h:691: note: previous declaration of ‘sys_ipc’ was here Hmm. Right you are. Why don't I see this? (I already applied the patch) Ahh. Because this only triggers with

Re: ppc64 sys_ipc breakage in 2.6.34-rc2

2010-03-22 Thread Andreas Schwab
Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org writes: On Mon, 22 Mar 2010, Andreas Schwab wrote: ipc/syscall.c:17: error: conflicting types for ‘sys_ipc’ include/linux/syscalls.h:691: note: previous declaration of ‘sys_ipc’ was here Hmm. Right you are. Why don't I see this? (I already

Re: ppc64 sys_ipc breakage in 2.6.34-rc2

2010-03-22 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 05:47:59PM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote: The patch below changes second from an int to an unsigned long which fixes shmget on ppc64 (and I assume s390, sparc64 and mips64). Looks good, except that the prototype in the header also needs to be adjusted.

Re: ppc64 sys_ipc breakage in 2.6.34-rc2

2010-03-22 Thread Anton Blanchard
Hi, ipc/syscall.c:17: error: conflicting types for ‘sys_ipc’ include/linux/syscalls.h:691: note: previous declaration of ‘sys_ipc’ was here Hmm. Right you are. Why don't I see this? (I already applied the patch) Ahh. Because this only triggers with __ARCH_WANT_SYS_IPC. But why