[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121205183923.GY4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2012 18:39:23 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>
Cc: linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/44] Meta Linux Kernel Port
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 05:11:32PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 04:08:18PM +0000, James Hogan wrote:
>
> > other work not included:
> > * switch to generic kernel_{thread,execve} (will be posted separately to
> > aid review)
>
> > other changes:
> ...
> > * switch to generic sys_execve
>
> ... which should've broken your kernel_execve().
BTW, one general note: lose the magical 7th argument. In the few syscalls
that do need pt_regs, you can bloody well use current_pt_regs() instead;
it's what, (register & constant) + constant? Passing it as explicit
argument is saving at most two arithmetical insns on those syscalls.
Moreover, for fork/clone/vfork we really don't need it until copy_thread();
one of the changes in -next kills passing pt_regs * to do_fork() and through
all that call chain (furthermore, if you make that
childregs->ctx.AX[0].U0 = ALIGN(usp, 8);
in copy_thread() conditional on usp != 0, you can go with generic
variants from kernel/fork.c; again, see linux-next for examples of that).
What's left? sigreturn and sigaltstack?
Seriously, drop that struct pt_regs *; it makes things uglier, (slightly)
hurts the syscall overhead and doesn't help the few syscalls that even
look at that argument.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists