On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 05:40:28PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Al Viro <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Anyway, that's a separate story - semctl(2) is going to be ugly, no matter > > what we do, but the rest of those guys doesn't have to. How about the > > following (completely untested): > > Hmm. Looks like the RightThing(tm) to me. > > The thing that stands out that I question the value of that > HAVE_SYSCALL_WRAPPERS thing. Is there any reason we don't just make > all architectures use it? What's the downside? I'm not sure I see the > point of the non-wrapper version.
Neither do I, to be honest. It might be saving us a few cycles on some architectures, but I'd like to see examples of that. amd64 doesn't seem to be one, at least... FWIW, there's another bit of ugliness around that area - all these #define __SC_BLAH3, etc., all of the same form. This stuff begs for something like #define __MAP1(m,t,a) m(t,a) #define __MAP2(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP1(m,__VA_ARGS__) #define __MAP3(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP2(m,__VA_ARGS__) #define __MAP4(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP3(m,__VA_ARGS__) #define __MAP5(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP4(m,__VA_ARGS__) #define __MAP6(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP5(m,__VA_ARGS__) #define __MAP(n,...) __MAP##n(__VA_ARGS__) with __MAP(x,__SC_DECL,__VA_ARGS__) instead of __SC_DECL##x(__VA_ARGS__) etc. in users... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
