| Message ID | 1381496638-29127-1-git-send-email-petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 11 October 2013 22:03, Petar Jovanovic <petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com> wrote: > From: Petar Jovanovic <petar.jovanovic@imgtec.com> > > Fix shmctl issue by passing correct parameter buf to do_shmctl(). Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> It would be nice if you gave more detail than "shmctl issue"... (for instance there are some known issues that affect some architectures but not others, cf http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2013-02/msg00447.html) thanks -- PMM
12.10.2013 00:44, Petar Jovanovic wrote: > ________________________________________ > From: Peter Maydell [peter.maydell@linaro.org] > Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 9:10 PM > To: Petar Jovanovic > Cc: QEMU Developers; QEMU Trivial; Riku Voipio; Petar Jovanovic; Aurelien Jarno > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-user: pass correct parameter to do_shmctl() > > On 11 October 2013 22:03, Petar Jovanovic <petar.jovanovic@rt-rk.com> wrote: >> From: Petar Jovanovic <petar.jovanovic@imgtec.com> >> >> Fix shmctl issue by passing correct parameter buf to do_shmctl(). > > Reviewed-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> > >> It would be nice if you gave more detail than "shmctl issue"... > > Yes, indeed. However, this is a bit tricky, because it can be associated > with different issues, and this particular fix is a follow up to an > another change [1] that I posted previously that defines arch-specific > structs target_ipc_perm and target_shmid_ds. The layout of the structs > is important. What "[1]" are you referring to? > This particular change will for instance, when joined with the > preceding change, make the code correctly return values in the buf > struct after: > > shmctl(shm_id, IPC_STAT, &buf) > > Different architectures benefit from these two patches. Shouldn't the two patches be applied together and be routed via some other, "non-trivial" tree instead? Thanks, /mjt
On 21 October 2013 11:49, Petar Jovanovic <Petar.Jovanovic@imgtec.com> wrote: > From: Michael Tokarev [mjt@tls.msk.ru] >> Shouldn't the two patches be applied together and be routed via some >> other, "non-trivial" tree instead? > > This is what I originally did, but Peter suggested to separate it in two patches. > Dividing that patch into two separate patches made this one trivial. I meant, "divide this one patch into two patches and post them as a single patch series [ie a cover letter with patches labelled 1/2 and 2/2, with the correct threading]". This is the standard way to submit changes which are best split into multiple patches/commits for ease of review but which combine to form a single feature/bugfix. These patches should all go via linux-user, yes. thanks -- PMM
diff --git a/linux-user/syscall.c b/linux-user/syscall.c index 4a14a43..1f6492e 100644 --- a/linux-user/syscall.c +++ b/linux-user/syscall.c @@ -3216,7 +3216,7 @@ static abi_long do_ipc(unsigned int call, int first, /* IPC_* and SHM_* command values are the same on all linux platforms */ case IPCOP_shmctl: - ret = do_shmctl(first, second, third); + ret = do_shmctl(first, second, ptr); break; default: gemu_log("Unsupported ipc call: %d (version %d)\n", call, version);