[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <C6ACC716-A81C-4960-9BDA-64630D704324@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 10:00:38 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC: peterz@...radead.org, dsafonov@...tuozzo.com, luto@...nel.org,
dvlasenk@...hat.com, luto@...capital.net,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, brgerst@...il.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
linux-tip-commits@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [tip:x86/asm] x86/entry: Rename is_{ia32,x32}_task() to in_{ia32,x32}_syscall()
On April 19, 2016 4:35:01 AM PDT, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de> wrote:
>On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 01:15:30PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> So I'd suggest the following renames to harmonize these concepts:
>>
>> - CONFIG_IA32_EMULATION => CONFIG_X86_32_ABI
>> this lines up nicely with: CONFIG_X86_X32_ABI
>
>Except that the only difference now is the "X" in the strings. So one
>would need more coffee when staring at those. :)
>
>>
>> - is_ia32_syscall() -> is_x86_32_syscall()
>> - is_x32_syscall() -> is_x86_x32_syscall()
>>
>> - is_compat_syscall() remains as-is.
>>
>> ... thoughts?
>
>Still, getting those names streamlined and logical is a step in the
>right direction IMO.
Let's use the i386 name instead of x86-32; that's what we use elsewhere in the kernel and is much easier to tell apart. Also, less likely to be caught up in "is this i386 only or *any* 32-bit call, including x32"?
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse brevity and formatting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists