Le 26/06/2019 à 09:54, Aleksandar Markovic a écrit : > > On Jun 19, 2019 6:34 PM, "Laurent Vivier" <laur...@vivier.eu > <mailto:laur...@vivier.eu>> wrote: >> >> Le 19/06/2019 à 16:17, Aleksandar Markovic a écrit : >> > From: Aleksandar Markovic <amarko...@wavecomp.com > <mailto:amarko...@wavecomp.com>> >> > >> > Only MIPS O32 and N32 have special (different than other >> > architectures) definition of structure flock in kernel. >> > >> > Bring flock definition for MIPS O64 ABI to the correct state. >> > >> > Reported-by: Dragan Mladjenovic <dmladjeno...@wavecomp.com > <mailto:dmladjeno...@wavecomp.com>> >> > Signed-off-by: Aleksandar Markovic <amarko...@wavecomp.com > <mailto:amarko...@wavecomp.com>> >> > --- >> > linux-user/generic/fcntl.h | 2 +- >> > linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h | 4 ++++ >> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/linux-user/generic/fcntl.h b/linux-user/generic/fcntl.h >> > index a775a49..1b48dde 100644 >> > --- a/linux-user/generic/fcntl.h >> > +++ b/linux-user/generic/fcntl.h >> > @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ struct target_flock { >> > short l_whence; >> > abi_long l_start; >> > abi_long l_len; >> > -#if defined(TARGET_MIPS) >> > +#if defined(TARGET_MIPS) && (TARGET_ABI_BITS == 32) >> > abi_long l_sysid; >> > #endif >> > int l_pid; >> > diff --git a/linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h > b/linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h >> > index 000527c..795bba7 100644 >> > --- a/linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h >> > +++ b/linux-user/mips/target_fcntl.h >> > @@ -27,7 +27,11 @@ >> > #define TARGET_F_SETOWN 24 /* for sockets. */ >> > #define TARGET_F_GETOWN 23 /* for sockets. */ >> > >> > +#if (TARGET_ABI_BITS == 32) >> > #define TARGET_ARCH_FLOCK_PAD abi_long pad[4]; >> > +#else >> > +#define TARGET_ARCH_FLOCK_PAD >> > +#endif >> > #define TARGET_ARCH_FLOCK64_PAD >> > >> > #define TARGET_F_GETLK64 33 /* using 'struct flock64' */ >> > >> >> The patch is correct, but I think it would be cleaner to introduce an >> "TARGET_HAVE_ARCH_STRUCT_FLOCK" as we have in the kernel for the mips > case. >> >> Thanks, >> Laurent >> > > Do you mean we should do everything in a single patch, or do you ask me > to devise a separate restructuring/cleanup patch here?
As you want, I'm fine with all in a single patch. Thanks, Laurent
