[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141029175851.GA19076@cloud>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:58:51 -0700
From: josh@...htriplett.org
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] x86: Support compiling out userspace I/O (iopl
and ioperm)
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:20:28AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/29/2014 10:17 AM, josh@...htriplett.org wrote:
> >>
> >> But this is entirely a style decision, so I leave it up to the x86
> >> maintainers ...
> >
> > I can certainly do that if the x86 maintainers prefer, but that tends to
> > produce a net increase in lines of code, as well as duplicating all the
> > function prototypes, which to me seems more error-prone. If the
> > stub versions contained any code, rather than just becoming no-ops, I'd
> > definitely do that.
> >
>
> I concur with this style choice.
To clarify: you concur with Kees's suggested change or with the style I
used in my patch?
> >> Another nit may be that we should call this CONFIG_SYSCALL_IOPL or
> >> CONFIG_SYSCALL_IOPERM in keeping with the other CONFIG_SYSCALL_*
> >> naming thread? Again, I don't really care strongly beyond really
> >> wanting to use this new feature! :)
> >
> > I don't feel strongly about the naming. Ingo?
>
> It is sort of a special case here, as this reflects more than one syscall.
As well as four VT ioctls. :)
- Josh Triplett
--
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