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 <ralf@linux-mips.org>
diff --git a/arch/mips/kernel/signal.c b/arch/mips/kernel/signal.c
index 0e1a5b8..b6aa770 100644
--- a/arch/mips/kernel/signal.c
+++ b/arch/mips/kernel/signal.c
@@ -568,17 +568,20 @@
}
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. */
}