[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <75735238.6347.1453934857246.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 22:47:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com>
To: Josh Triplett <josh@...htriplett.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Paul Turner <pjt@...gle.com>,
Andrew Hunter <ahh@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-api <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Dave Watson <davejwatson@...com>, Chris Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Ben Maurer <bmaurer@...com>,
rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number
of running thread
----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Josh Triplett josh@...htriplett.org wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:34:35PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@...utronix.de wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> >> > ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@...utronix.de wrote:
>> >> > Sounds fair. What is the recommended typing for "ptr" then ?
>> >> > uint32_t ** or uint32_t * ?
>> >> >
>> >> > It would be expected to pass a "uint32_t *" for the set
>> >> > operation, but the "get" operation requires a "uint32_t **".
>> >>
>> >> Well, you can't change the types depending on the opcode, so you need to stick
>> >> with **.
>> >
>> > Alternatively you make it:
>> >
>> > (opcode, *newptr, **oldptr, flags);
>>
>> I'm tempted to stick to (opcode, **ptr, flags), because
>> other syscalls that have "*newptr", "**oldptr"
>> typically have them because they save the current state
>> into oldptr, and set the new state, which is really
>> not the case here. To eliminate any risk of confusion,
>> I am tempted to keep a single "**ptr".
>>
>> Unless someone has a better idea...
>
> Either that or you could define it as "void *" and interpret it based on
> flags, but that seems unfortunate; let's not imitate ioctl-style
> typeless parameters. I'd stick with the double pointer and the current
> behavior.
Allright, will do! Thanks for the feedback :)
Mathieu
--
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists