[RFC PATCH 1/2] arm64: fpsimd: Fix bad si_code for undiagnosed SIGFPE
From: Eric W. Biederman <hidden>
Date: 2018-01-23 18:27:16
Dave Martin [off-list ref] writes:
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:13:08PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:quoted
quoted
diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h index e447283..77edb00 100644 --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/siginfo.h@@ -193,7 +193,8 @@ typedef struct siginfo { #define FPE_FLTRES 6 /* floating point inexact result */ #define FPE_FLTINV 7 /* floating point invalid operation */ #define FPE_FLTSUB 8 /* subscript out of range */ -#define NSIGFPE 8 +#define FPE_UNKNOWN 9 /* undiagnosed floating-point exception */ +#define NSIGFPE 9Minor nit here. At least before this is final I would really appreciate if you could rebase this on top of my unificiation of siginfo.h that I posted on linux-arch and is in my siginfo-next branch. As that already pushes NSIGFPE up to 13. Which would make this patch change NSIGFPE to 14 and allocate the number 14 for FPE_UNKNOWNMy bad -- I hadn't looked in detail at the whole series. However, the purpose of this as an RFC was to get feedback on whether adding FPE_UNKNOWN is considered acceptable at all from an API perspective -- the precise number doesn't matter for that discussion. Do you have any view on this?
That seems as good a solution as any too me. It is reality and it happens in the code and there are several places of the same form I would use it, just to get rid of the FPE_FIXME. Eric