On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 02:12:15 +0300
"Dmitry V. Levin" wrote:
> > Seriously. If we keep it can we at least remove all the unused arguments
> > which we have on both functions to simplify the whole mess?
>
> In case of syscall_set_arguments() I think we can safely remove
> "i" and "n" arguments
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 11:52:19PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:29:16PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019 23:52:19 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Could we delay the removal of syscall_set_arguments() until
> > PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO is merged into the kernel?
> > I hope it won't take another 11 years.
>
> Hope dies last :)
>
> Seriously. If we keep it can we at
On Thu, 28 Mar 2019, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:29:16PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > On 03/23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > > 2)
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 03:29:16PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 03/23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > 2) syscall_set_arguments() has been introduced in 2008 and we
On Wed, 27 Mar 2019, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 03/23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> [...]
> > > 2) syscall_set_arguments() has been introduced in 2008 and we still have
> > > no caller. Instead of polishing it, can it be removed
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
[...]
> > 2) syscall_set_arguments() has been introduced in 2008 and we still have
> > no caller. Instead of polishing it, can it be removed completely or are
> > there plans to actually use
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:09:44 +0100 (CET)
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > > > 1) The third argument of get/set(), i.e. the argument offset, is 0 on
> > > > all
> > > > call sites. Do we need it at all?
> > >
> > > Probably "maxargs" can be
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 17:09:44 +0100 (CET)
Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > 1) The third argument of get/set(), i.e. the argument offset, is 0 on all
> > > call sites. Do we need it at all?
> >
> > Probably "maxargs" can be removed too, Steven sent the patches a long ago,
> > see
> >
On Tue, 26 Mar 2019, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> >
> > > arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 28
> > > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
> >
> > Second thoughts. So this adds 28 /*
On 03/23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
>
> > arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 28
> > 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>
> Second thoughts. So this adds 28 /* fall through */ comments. Now I
> appreciate the effort, but
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019, Gustavo A. R. Silva wrote:
> arch/x86/include/asm/syscall.h | 28
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
Second thoughts. So this adds 28 /* fall through */ comments. Now I
appreciate the effort, but can we pretty please look at the code in
question
In preparation to enable -Wimplicit-fallthrough by default, mark
switch-case statements where fall-through is intentional, explicitly
in order to fix a bunch of -Wimplicit-fallthrough warnings.
In order to get the warnings mentioned above, the following
line was added to the top Makefile:
13 matches
Mail list logo
