Hi H., On Sat, 27 Feb 2016 11:35:08 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" <h...@zytor.com> wrote: > > On February 27, 2016 11:16:44 AM PST, Dave Hansen <d...@sr71.net> wrote: > >On 02/27/2016 03:41 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > >> * Stephen Rothwell <s...@canb.auug.org.au> wrote: > >>> > On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 09:44:00 -0800 "H. Peter Anvin" > ><h...@zytor.com> wrote: > >>>> > > __u64 is okay, "unsigned long" is really messy in the presence > >of 32-on-64 bit ABIs... > >>> > > >>> > Yeah, but unfortunately, any 64 bit scalar type here will change > >the > >>> > alignment of the enclosing unions on (some) 32 bit platforms and > >thus > >>> > break the ABI. > >> Then a different solution has to be found. > > > >I've acked Stephen's initial patch changing the 'u64' to an 'int'. x86 > >only needs 4 bits, and in the remote chance that a future > >implementation > >needed more space, we could easily add a second 32-bit field "_pkey_hi" > >or something that wouldn't have the alignment issues of a true 64-bit > >type. > > > >How should we get Stephen's patch in to the tip tree? > > u32?
It would have to be __u32, but we already use int and unsigned int extensively in the siginfo structure (which are both always assumed to be 32 bits). So "unsigned int" probably makes most sense. I will submit that patch - with Dave's Ack. -- Cheers, Stephen Rothwell
