[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190524095701.b7ioi5gg573vmajh@brauner.io>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 11:57:04 +0200
From: Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@...dex-team.ru>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Todd Kjos <tkjos@...roid.com>,
"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@...linux.org>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>,
alpha <linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-m68k <linux-m68k@...ts.linux-m68k.org>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
Parisc List <linux-parisc@...r.kernel.org>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
sparclinux <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xtensa@...ux-xtensa.org,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] open: add close_range()
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 09:43:53AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:33 PM Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 07:22:17PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > > On 22.05.2019 18:52, Christian Brauner wrote:> This adds the close_range() syscall. It allows to efficiently close a range
> > > > 22 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > It would be better to split arch/ wiring into separate patch for better readability.
> >
> > Ok. You mean only do x86 - seems to be the standard - and then move the
> > others into a separate patch? Doesn't seem worth to have a patch
> > per-arch, I'd think.
>
> I think I would prefer the first patch to just add the call without wiring it up
> anywhere, and a second patch do add it on all architectures including x86.
I've split this into two patches and also bumped arm64
__NR_compat_syscalls that I've missed before as you mentioned!
Thanks!
Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists