[PATCH 0/2] arm64: Abstract syscallno manipulation · Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin) · 2017-07-18
[PATCH 1/2] arm64: syscallno is secretly an int, make it official · Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin) · 2017-07-18
[PATCH 1/2] arm64: syscallno is secretly an int, make it official · Lothar Waßmann <hidden> · 2017-07-19
[PATCH 1/2] arm64: syscallno is secretly an int, make it official · Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin) · 2017-07-19
[PATCH 1/2] arm64: syscallno is secretly an int, make it official · Will Deacon <hidden> · 2017-08-01
[PATCH 1/2] arm64: syscallno is secretly an int, make it official · Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin) · 2017-08-01
[PATCH 2/2] arm64: Abstract syscallno manipulation · Dave.Martin@arm.com (Dave Martin) · 2017-07-18
[PATCH 2/2] arm64: Abstract syscallno manipulation · Will Deacon <hidden> · 2017-08-01

STALE3293d

Revision v1 of 6 in this series.

Revisions (6)

2017-07-18 v1 [diff vs current]
2017-07-19 v1 current
2017-07-19 v1 [diff vs current]
2017-08-01 v1 [diff vs current]
2017-08-01 v1 [diff vs current]
2017-08-01 v2 [diff vs current]

[PATCH 1/2] arm64: syscallno is secretly an int, make it official

From: Lothar Waßmann <hidden>
Date: 2017-07-19 13:14:55

Hi,

On Tue, 18 Jul 2017 13:41:43 +0100 Dave Martin wrote:

The upper 32 bits of the syscallno field in struct pt_regs are handled
inconsistently, being sometimes zero extended and sometimes
sign-extended.  The reason for this appears to be that they are not
intentionally significant at all.

My english parser fails on "not intentionally significant at all".


Lothar Wa?mann