[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170629073322.1b007407@canb.auug.org.au>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 07:33:22 +1000
From: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc: Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
PowerPC <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the block tree
Hi Jens,
On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 09:11:32 -0600 Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 06/28/2017 08:01 AM, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > But put_user() is fine? Just checking here, since the change adds
> > both a u64 put and get user.
Yes, put_user is fine (it does 2 4 byte moves. The asm is there to do
the 8 byte get_user, but the surrounding C code uses an unsigned long
for the destination in all cases (some other arches do the same). I
don't remember why it is like that.
> I just changed all 4, at least that provides some symmetry in how
> we copy things in and out for that set of fcntls.
OK, thanks.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell
Powered by blists - more mailing lists