[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190329134045.3fb2e69f@gandalf.local.home>
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2019 13:40:45 -0400
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...k.frob.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavo@...eddedor.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@...inikbrodowski.net>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/4 v2] sycalls: Remove args i and n from
syscall_get_arguments()
On Fri, 29 Mar 2019 10:24:58 -0700
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> The whole series looks fine to me.
Great! I may just send a pull request to you, after some fixes (see
below).
>
> I still suspect that we should just remove the syscall_set_arguments()
> thing entirely, but even without that, the cleanup of the calling
> convention is at least an improvement.
I'll keep it around for now, but this should go as a warning to Dmitry,
to get something using it soon, or they may be dropped.
Also, Dmitry found a few bugs with the current
syscall_set/get_arguments() on some of the archs (riscv and csky). Which
I'll add at the front of this series and update my changes to keep the
same logic.
Then I'll post a non RFC version.
-- Steve
Powered by blists - more mailing lists