On 10/29/2014 10:17 AM, j...@joshtriplett.org wrote:
>>
>> But this is entirely a style decision, so I leave it up to the x86
>> maintainers ...
>
> I can certainly do that if the x86 maintainers prefer, but that tends to
> produce a net increase in lines of code, as well as duplicating all the
> function prototypes, which to me seems more error-prone. If the
> stub versions contained any code, rather than just becoming no-ops, I'd
> definitely do that.
>
I concur with this style choice.
>> Another nit may be that we should call this CONFIG_SYSCALL_IOPL or
>> CONFIG_SYSCALL_IOPERM in keeping with the other CONFIG_SYSCALL_*
>> naming thread? Again, I don't really care strongly beyond really
>> wanting to use this new feature! :)
>
> I don't feel strongly about the naming. Ingo?
It is sort of a special case here, as this reflects more than one syscall.
-hpa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
