[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160204164718.GF16315@kvack.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2016 11:47:18 -0500
From: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Linux-Next <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the aio tree
On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 04:17:42PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> That's the easy bit!
>
> The problem you're going to run into is here:
>
> #define __get_user_nocheck(x, ptr, size) \
> ({ \
> int __gu_err; \
> unsigned long __gu_val; \
> __uaccess_begin(); \
> __get_user_size(__gu_val, (ptr), (size), __gu_err, -EFAULT); \
> __uaccess_end(); \
> (x) = (__force __typeof__(*(ptr)))__gu_val; \
>
> __gu_val will be 32-bit, even when you're wanting a 64-bit quantity.
> That's where the fun and games start...
You're right -- it's quite non-trivial. How evil would it be to make a
separate __get_user64() macro?
-ben
--
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."
Powered by blists - more mailing lists