[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87y2j28o3a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 19:35:53 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>
Cc: mingo@...hat.com, keescook@...omium.org, arnd@...db.de,
luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
paul@...l-moore.com, eparis@...hat.com, oleg@...hat.com,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@...labora.com>,
kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] seccomp: Migrate to use SYSCALL_WORK flag
On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 22:29, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote:
>
> +enum syscall_work_bit {
> + SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP = 0,
enums start at 0, so why do you need an explicit assignment?
> +};
> +
> +#define _SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP BIT(SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP)
Do we really have to repeat the nonsense from TIF/_TIF in the naming
here? Can we please name this in a way which makes it obvious what is
what?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists