Am Donnerstag, den 30.01.2014, 11:51 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski: > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Stefani Seibold <stef...@seibold.net> wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 30.01.2014, 10:05 -0800 schrieb Andy Lutomirski: > >> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:49 AM, <stef...@seibold.net> wrote: > >> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/compat.h > >> > b/arch/x86/include/asm/compat.h > >> > index 59c6c40..45ba688 100644 > >> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/compat.h > >> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/compat.h > >> > @@ -295,6 +295,10 @@ static inline compat_uptr_t ptr_to_compat(void > >> > __user *uptr) > >> > > >> > static inline void __user *arch_compat_alloc_user_space(long len) > >> > { > >> > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_32 > >> > + struct pt_regs *regs = task_pt_regs(current); > >> > + return (void __user *)regs->sp - len; > >> > >> Is there some reason this doesn't need to be aligned? > >> > > > > The reason is that this function will not used for 32 bit kernels, but > > will the header will be included... This prevents an error! > > Then why not just guard the whole function with an ifdef? Having a > piece of actual code that's not intended to be used (and might not > work) seems like a bad idea. >
Good point. I will do this in the next version. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/