Re: [PATCH] S/390: Fix layout of struct sigaction_t

On 07.04.20 09:59, Iain Buclaw wrote: > On 01/04/2020 18:20, Stefan Liebler wrote: >> On 4/1/20 12:54 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >>> On 01/04/2020 08:28, Stefan Liebler wrote: ping >>> >>> Thanks, I'll send the patch upstream, as it's the same there. >>> >>> Looks OK to me. >>> >>> Regards >>

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Fix layout of struct sigaction_t

On 01/04/2020 18:20, Stefan Liebler wrote: > On 4/1/20 12:54 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: >> On 01/04/2020 08:28, Stefan Liebler wrote: >>> ping >>> >> >> Thanks, I'll send the patch upstream, as it's the same there. >> >> Looks OK to me. >> >> Regards >> Iain. >> > > Thanks for committing the patch ups

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Fix layout of struct sigaction_t

On 4/1/20 12:54 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: On 01/04/2020 08:28, Stefan Liebler wrote: ping Thanks, I'll send the patch upstream, as it's the same there. Looks OK to me. Regards Iain. Thanks for committing the patch upstream

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Fix layout of struct sigaction_t

On 01/04/2020 08:28, Stefan Liebler wrote: > ping > Thanks, I'll send the patch upstream, as it's the same there. Looks OK to me. Regards Iain.

Re: [PATCH] S/390: Fix layout of struct sigaction_t

ping On 3/23/20 6:05 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote: Hi, the ordering of some fields in  struct sigaction on s390x (64bit) differs compared to s390 and other architectures. This patch adjusts this order according to the definition of /sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/bits/sigaction.h Without this fix e.

[PATCH] S/390: Fix layout of struct sigaction_t

Hi, the ordering of some fields in struct sigaction on s390x (64bit) differs compared to s390 and other architectures. This patch adjusts this order according to the definition of /sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/bits/sigaction.h Without this fix e.g. the call sigaction( suspendSignalNumber, &sigu