* Kyle Huey <m...@kylehuey.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Ingo Molnar <mi...@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > * Kyle Huey <m...@kylehuey.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In order to introduce new arch_prctls that are not 64 bit only, rename the
> >> existing 64 bit implementation to do_arch_prctl_64(). Also rename the
> >> second
> >> argument to arch_prctl(), which will no longer always be an address.
> >
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> >> void entry_SYSCALL_64(void);
> >> +long do_arch_prctl_64(struct task_struct *task, int code, unsigned long
> >> arg2);
> >> #endif
> >
> > Could you please also rename the weirdly named 'code' argument to 'option',
> > to be in line with the existing sys_prctl() interface nomenclature?
>
> arch_prctl consistently uses 'code' throughout the kernel and in the
> main page. This renaming should probably be done separately if
> desired.
'arch_prctl' is essentially an x86-ism that arbitrarily changed 'option' to
'code'
to implement a sub-option where the option was indeed 'code' - but with _your_
changes it becomes outright misleading and confusing: as the 'code' is not code
anymore but one of the several options.
The core kernel uses 'option' and we should follow that nomenclature.
Thanks,
Ingo
