| Message ID | 20200829163631.GA7483@ls3530.fritz.box (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [RFC] parisc: Drop parisc special case for __sighandler_t | expand |
diff --git a/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/signal.h b/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/signal.h index e605197b462c..d9c51769851a 100644 --- a/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/signal.h +++ b/arch/parisc/include/uapi/asm/signal.h @@ -85,16 +85,8 @@ struct siginfo; /* Type of a signal handler. */ -#if defined(__LP64__) -/* function pointers on 64-bit parisc are pointers to little structs and the - * compiler doesn't support code which changes or tests the address of - * the function in the little struct. This is really ugly -PB - */ -typedef char __user *__sighandler_t; -#else typedef void __signalfn_t(int); typedef __signalfn_t __user *__sighandler_t; -#endif typedef struct sigaltstack { void __user *ss_sp;
I believe we can and *should* drop this parisc-specific typedef for __sighandler_t when compiling a 64-bit kernel. The reasons: 1. We don't have a 64-bit userspace yet, so nothing (on userspace side) can break. 2. Inside the Linux kernel, this is only used in kernel/signal.c, in function kernel_sigaction() where the signal handler is compared against SIG_IGN. SIG_IGN is defined as (__sighandler_t)1), so only the pointers are compared. 3. Even when a 64-bit userspace gets added at some point, I think __sighandler_t should be defined what it is: a function pointer struct. I compiled kernel/signal.c with and without the patch, and the produced code is identical in both cases. Opinions? Do I miss something? If we want to change it, we should do it before this patch gets applied: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11730893/ Signed-off-by: Helge Deller <deller@gmx.de>