[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1611791083.sqnnh21vv0.astroid@bobo.none>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 09:50:12 +1000
From: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"msuchanek@...e.de" <msuchanek@...e.de>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>
Cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v4 11/23] powerpc/syscall: Rename syscall_64.c into
syscall.c
Excerpts from David Laight's message of January 26, 2021 8:28 pm:
> From: Nicholas Piggin
>> Sent: 26 January 2021 10:21
>>
>> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of January 26, 2021 12:48 am:
>> > syscall_64.c will be reused almost as is for PPC32.
>> >
>> > Rename it syscall.c
>>
>> Could you rename it to interrupt.c instead? A system call is an
>> interrupt, and the file now also has code to return from other
>> interrupts as well, and it matches the new asm/interrupt.h from
>> the interrupts series.
>
> Hmmm....
>
> That might make it harder for someone looking for the system call
> entry code to find it.
It's very grep'able.
> In some sense interrupts are the simpler case.
>
> Especially when comparing with other architectures which have
> special instructions for syscall entry.
powerpc does have a special instruction for syscall, and it causes a
system call interrupt.
I'm not sure about other architectures, but for powerpc its more
sensible to call it interrupt.c than syscall.c.
Thanks,
Nick
Powered by blists - more mailing lists