Am 09.02.2012 19:30, schrieb Alex Barcelo:
> Signed-off-by: Alex Barcelo <[email protected]>
This patch needs a better description than "bug", and you forgot to cc
the linux-user maintainer. The patch should describe what it touches
(linux-user), what it does, what for and make clear why that is correct.
Is there a particular test case that's broken without the patch?
I can't speak for Stefan, but to me it is totally unclear from looking
at the patch what sas_ss_flags() does here so this is likely not really
a trivial one.
Andreas
> ---
> linux-user/signal.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/linux-user/signal.c b/linux-user/signal.c
> index 79a39dc..26e0530 100644
> --- a/linux-user/signal.c
> +++ b/linux-user/signal.c
> @@ -4115,7 +4115,7 @@ static target_ulong get_sigframe(struct
> target_sigaction *ka,
> oldsp = env->gpr[1];
>
> if ((ka->sa_flags & TARGET_SA_ONSTACK) &&
> - (sas_ss_flags(oldsp))) {
> + (sas_ss_flags(oldsp)) == 0) {
> oldsp = (target_sigaltstack_used.ss_sp
> + target_sigaltstack_used.ss_size);
> }
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
