diff mbox series

[1/5] arm64: signal: Remove unused macro

Message ID 20241017133909.3837547-2-kevin.brodsky@arm.com (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show
Series Improve arm64 pkeys handling in signal delivery | expand

Commit Message

Kevin Brodsky Oct. 17, 2024, 1:39 p.m. UTC
Commit 33f082614c34 ("arm64: signal: Allow expansion of the signal
frame") introduced the BASE_SIGFRAME_SIZE macro but it has
apparently never been used.

Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>
---
 arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c | 1 -
 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Dave Martin Oct. 17, 2024, 3:49 p.m. UTC | #1
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> Commit 33f082614c34 ("arm64: signal: Allow expansion of the signal
> frame") introduced the BASE_SIGFRAME_SIZE macro but it has
> apparently never been used.

Nit: Should there be a statement of what the patch does?

Same throughout the series.

(Yes, I know it's in the subject line, but Mutt doesn't think that's
part of the message body, so I can't see it now that I'm replying...
and submitting-patches.rst and e.g., maintainer-tip.rst seem to take
the same policy, albeit without quite stating it explicitly.)

> Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>

Weird.  Maybe there are places where this could have been used, but I
guess we have managed fine without it.

Or possibly some unmerged version of the SVE patches used this but it
disappeared in refactoring.

Either way:

Reviewed-by: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>

> ---
>  arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c | 1 -
>  1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> index 561986947530..dc998326e24d 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
> @@ -66,7 +66,6 @@ struct rt_sigframe_user_layout {
>  	unsigned long end_offset;
>  };
>  
> -#define BASE_SIGFRAME_SIZE round_up(sizeof(struct rt_sigframe), 16)
>  #define TERMINATOR_SIZE round_up(sizeof(struct _aarch64_ctx), 16)
>  #define EXTRA_CONTEXT_SIZE round_up(sizeof(struct extra_context), 16)
>  
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 
>
Kevin Brodsky Oct. 21, 2024, 10:05 a.m. UTC | #2
On 17/10/2024 17:49, Dave Martin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>> Commit 33f082614c34 ("arm64: signal: Allow expansion of the signal
>> frame") introduced the BASE_SIGFRAME_SIZE macro but it has
>> apparently never been used.
> Nit: Should there be a statement of what the patch does?
>
> Same throughout the series.
>
> (Yes, I know it's in the subject line, but Mutt doesn't think that's
> part of the message body, so I can't see it now that I'm replying...
> and submitting-patches.rst and e.g., maintainer-tip.rst seem to take
> the same policy, albeit without quite stating it explicitly.)

Ah good point, I didn't consider that. Will make it explicit in patch 1
and 2.

Kevin
Catalin Marinas Oct. 21, 2024, 1:01 p.m. UTC | #3
On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> Commit 33f082614c34 ("arm64: signal: Allow expansion of the signal
> frame") introduced the BASE_SIGFRAME_SIZE macro but it has
> apparently never been used.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@arm.com>

Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
Dave Martin Oct. 21, 2024, 1:44 p.m. UTC | #4
On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:05:30PM +0200, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 17/10/2024 17:49, Dave Martin wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 02:39:05PM +0100, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> >> Commit 33f082614c34 ("arm64: signal: Allow expansion of the signal
> >> frame") introduced the BASE_SIGFRAME_SIZE macro but it has
> >> apparently never been used.
> > Nit: Should there be a statement of what the patch does?
> >
> > Same throughout the series.
> >
> > (Yes, I know it's in the subject line, but Mutt doesn't think that's
> > part of the message body, so I can't see it now that I'm replying...
> > and submitting-patches.rst and e.g., maintainer-tip.rst seem to take
> > the same policy, albeit without quite stating it explicitly.)
> 
> Ah good point, I didn't consider that. Will make it explicit in patch 1
> and 2.

Thanks.

(I have a patch for submitting-patches.rst knocking about to propose
making this more explicit, but I didn't dare to post it so far...)

Cheers
---Dave
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
index 561986947530..dc998326e24d 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/signal.c
@@ -66,7 +66,6 @@  struct rt_sigframe_user_layout {
 	unsigned long end_offset;
 };
 
-#define BASE_SIGFRAME_SIZE round_up(sizeof(struct rt_sigframe), 16)
 #define TERMINATOR_SIZE round_up(sizeof(struct _aarch64_ctx), 16)
 #define EXTRA_CONTEXT_SIZE round_up(sizeof(struct extra_context), 16)