Re: [PATCH 3/8] signal/sparc: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Date: 2017-06-30 16:45:13
Also in:
linux-arch, lkml, sparclinux
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2017-07-18 · Re: [PATCH 3/8] signal/sparc: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE · Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
- 2017-06-30 · Re: [PATCH 3/8] signal/sparc: Document a conflict with SI_USER with SIGFPE · Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
From: "Eric W. Biederman" <redacted> Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2017 07:39:01 -0500
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h b/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h index 2d9b79ccaa50..6bc5c677e92f 100644 --- a/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h +++ b/arch/sparc/include/uapi/asm/siginfo.h@@ -17,6 +17,11 @@ #define SI_NOINFO 32767 /* no information in siginfo_t */ /* + * SIGFPE si_codes + */ +#define FPE_FIXME (__SI_FAULT|0) /* Broken dup of SI_USER */ + +/* * SIGEMT si_codes */ #define EMT_TAGOVF (__SI_FAULT|1) /* tag overflow */
It's one thing to say FIXME in a comment in a kernel local header or C file. It's quite another to put this into the name of a macro which has visibility in the global user compilation namespace. I don't think you should really do that.