21 Jun
2018
21 Jun
'18
4:01 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 5:49 PM, Ingo Molnar mingo@kernel.org wrote:
- Arnd Bergmann arnd@arndb.de wrote:
+int put_compat_rusage_time64(const struct __kernel_rusage *r,
struct compat_rusage_time64 __user *ru)+{
struct compat_rusage_time64 r32;memset(&r32, 0, sizeof(r32));r32.ru_utime.tv_sec = r->ru_utime.tv_sec;r32.ru_utime.tv_usec = r->ru_utime.tv_usec;r32.ru_stime.tv_sec = r->ru_stime.tv_sec;r32.ru_stime.tv_usec = r->ru_stime.tv_usec;r32.ru_maxrss = r->ru_maxrss;r32.ru_ixrss = r->ru_ixrss;r32.ru_idrss = r->ru_idrss;r32.ru_isrss = r->ru_isrss;r32.ru_minflt = r->ru_minflt;r32.ru_majflt = r->ru_majflt;r32.ru_nswap = r->ru_nswap;r32.ru_inblock = r->ru_inblock;r32.ru_oublock = r->ru_oublock;r32.ru_msgsnd = r->ru_msgsnd;r32.ru_msgrcv = r->ru_msgrcv;r32.ru_nsignals = r->ru_nsignals;r32.ru_nvcsw = r->ru_nvcsw;r32.ru_nivcsw = r->ru_nivcsw;Could you please vertically align the right side of the initialization as well? Much easier to check at a glance.
...
Which tabulated form made me notice the info.cause / si_code asymmetry - and a brief check of the source shows that it's correct. No way would I have noticed it in the jumbled up form above, so I think aligning such mass-initializations makes sense.
Sure, no problem. Do you have an opinion on the question I raised in the first patch [1], i.e. whether we actually want this to be done this way in the kernel, or one of the other approaches I described there?
Thanks for taking a look here already!
Arnd