> This looks ok, except that scripts/checkpatch.pl says:
>
> WARNING: braces {} are necessary for all arms of this statement
> #36: FILE: linux-user/syscall.c:2254:
> + if (get_user_ual(sockfd, vptr)
> [...]
>
> total: 0 errors, 1 warnings, 30 lines checked
>
> Fix that and I'll be happy to slap a "reviewed-by" sticker on it. Be sure
> to CC me on the fixed version of the patch.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Erik
This warning seems wrong:
- the if statement has no braces and only one arm
- the if statement looks like the others around it, i just try to keep the
same style
Am 06.01.2014 11:21, schrieb Laurent Vivier:
>
>> Le 6 janvier 2014 à 10:14, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On 6 January 2014 08:45, Laurent Vivier <laur...@vivier.eu> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Le 6 janvier 2014 à 02:57, André Hentschel <n...@dawncrow.de> a écrit :
>> >> diff --git a/linux-user/syscall_defs.h b/linux-user/syscall_defs.h
>> >> index cf08db5..b36f99c 100644
>> >> --- a/linux-user/syscall_defs.h
>> >> +++ b/linux-user/syscall_defs.h
>> >> @@ -27,6 +27,9 @@
>> >> #define SOCKOP_getsockopt 15
>> >> #define SOCKOP_sendmsg 16
>> >> #define SOCKOP_recvmsg 17
>> >> +#define SOCKOP_accept4 18
>> >> +#define SOCKOP_recvmmsg 19
>> >> +#define SOCKOP_sendmmsg 20
>> >
>> > Don't add these both defines here as they are not used in this patch.
>>
>> It doesn't seem that unreasonable to add them. We add things
>> to the main syscall number #define list even if we aren't
>> actually implementing them, for example.
>
> IMHO, you should not : if you implement these syscalls and then revert this
> patch (because it is broken, for instance), you will break the build. The
> defines must come with the implementation.
good point for removing them and add them separatly.
