From 9ec9b5ac239ebfff333c25c4a7d34649cb29e4e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Ralf Baechle Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 14:27:19 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] MIPS: Fix harmlessly missing else statement. The actual bug is a missing else statement - but really this should be expressed using a switch() statement. Found by Al Viro who writes "the funny thing is, it *does* work only because r2 is syscall number and syscall number around 512 => return value being ENOSYS and not one of ERESTART... so we really can't hit the first if and emerge from it with ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK. still wrong to write it that way..." Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle --- arch/mips/kernel/signal.c | 13 ++++++++----- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/signal.c b/arch/mips/kernel/signal.c index 0e1a5b8ae817..b6aa77035019 100644 --- a/arch/mips/kernel/signal.c +++ b/arch/mips/kernel/signal.c @@ -568,17 +568,20 @@ static void do_signal(struct pt_regs *regs) } if (regs->regs[0]) { - if (regs->regs[2] == ERESTARTNOHAND || - regs->regs[2] == ERESTARTSYS || - regs->regs[2] == ERESTARTNOINTR) { + switch (regs->regs[2]) { + case ERESTARTNOHAND: + case ERESTARTSYS: + case ERESTARTNOINTR: regs->regs[2] = regs->regs[0]; regs->regs[7] = regs->regs[26]; regs->cp0_epc -= 4; - } - if (regs->regs[2] == ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK) { + break; + + case ERESTART_RESTARTBLOCK: regs->regs[2] = current->thread.abi->restart; regs->regs[7] = regs->regs[26]; regs->cp0_epc -= 4; + break; } regs->regs[0] = 0; /* Don't deal with this again. */ } -- 2.30.2