On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:30 AM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote: > On Friday 07 November 2014 13:11:30 Will Deacon wrote: >> >> > It's not that I care strongly about the interface, my main point is >> > that the changelog doesn't describe why one interface was used instead >> > the other. >> >> I suspect the current approach was taken because it follows the same scheme >> as 32-bit ARM. If both methods are sufficient (Kees would have a better idea >> than me on that), then I don't have a strong preference. > > Using the regset would probably address Oleg's comment, and would keep the > implementation architecture specific. You could even share the > NT_S390_SYSTEM_CALL > number, but I don't know if there any downsides to doing that.
That's fine by me -- I only want an interface. :) I think it'd be nice to keep it the same between arm32 and arm64, but using a specific regset does seem to be the better approach. -Kees -- Kees Cook Chrome OS Security -- 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/
