qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/xtensa: linux-user: fix sysv IPC structu


From: Max Filippov
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target/xtensa: linux-user: fix sysv IPC structures
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2018 13:22:54 -0700

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Laurent Vivier <address@hidden> wrote:
> Le 01/04/2018 à 21:24, Max Filippov a écrit :
>>  struct target_shmid_ds {
>>      struct target_ipc_perm shm_perm;    /* operation permission struct */
>> -    abi_int shm_segsz;                  /* size of segment in bytes */
>> +    abi_long shm_segsz;                 /* size of segment in bytes */
>> +#ifdef TARGET_WORDS_BIGENDIAN
>> +    abi_ulong __unused1;
>>      abi_long shm_atime;                 /* time of last shmat() */
>> +    abi_ulong __unused2;
>>      abi_long shm_dtime;                 /* time of last shmdt() */
>> +    abi_ulong __unused3;
>>      abi_long shm_ctime;                 /* time of last change by shmctl() 
>> */
>> -    abi_ushort shm_cpid;                /* pid of creator */
>> -    abi_ushort shm_lpid;                /* pid of last shmop */
>> -    abi_ushort shm_nattch;              /* number of current attaches */
>> -    abi_ushort shm_unused;              /* compatibility */
>> +#else
>> +    abi_long shm_atime;                 /* time of last shmat() */
>> +    abi_ulong __unused1;
>> +    abi_long shm_dtime;                 /* time of last shmdt() */
>>      abi_ulong __unused2;
>> +    abi_long shm_ctime;                 /* time of last change by shmctl() 
>> */
>>      abi_ulong __unused3;
>> +#endif
>> +    abi_uint shm_cpid;                  /* pid of creator */
>> +    abi_uint shm_lpid;                  /* pid of last shmop */
>> +    abi_ulong shm_nattch;               /* number of current attaches */
>> +    abi_ulong __unused4;
>> +    abi_ulong __unused5;
>>  };
>
> This is weird: shmid64_ds in arch/xtensa/include/uapi/asm/shmbuf.h has
> two part like yours, but both parts have exactly the same fields order.
>
> Could you explain?

Ooops, my bad. I haven't checked how this part works and I guess
the kernel definitions were meant to be different, but alas, they're not.
I'll drop this part.

-- 
Thanks.
-- Max



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]