On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 01:44:19PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:

David Miller [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

From: ebiederm at xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 12:27:16 -0600

quoted

Dave Martin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 03:13:08PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
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, feel free to do something similar on Sparc.

Will do.

This sounds like a good solution for this weird corner case, that
appears on multiple architectures.

OK, I'll rebase my patches onto your tree (though trivial here) and
repost.

I'm still waiting for feeback on the Arm specifics, but FPE_UNKNOWN
could be picked up independently of that.

Cheers
---Dave