On Tue, Dec 19, 2023 at 3:15 PM Linus Torvalds <torva...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 at 12:17, Linus Torvalds > <torva...@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > > > > That said, I still think that just getting rid of this horrid special > > case for posix timers is the right thing, and we should just remove > > that SYS_NI() alias thing entirely. > > IOW, something like the attached patch. > > It's not extensively tested, but hey, the diffstat looks nice: > > arch/arm64/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h | 4 --- > arch/riscv/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h | 5 ---- > arch/s390/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h | 13 +-------- > arch/x86/include/asm/syscall_wrapper.h | 34 +++--------------------- > kernel/sys_ni.c | 14 ++++++++++ > kernel/time/posix-stubs.c | 45 > -------------------------------- > 6 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 96 deletions(-) > > and it builds in at least a *couple* of configurations, including with > CONFIG_POSIX_TIMERS disabled. > > I did *not* check whether it might fix the warning, since I doubt my > user space would even boot without that posix timer support (actually, > honestly, because I'm just lazy and "it _looks_ fine to me" was the > main real thing).
I tested the patch with the 0-day bot reproducer and it does fix the warning. My usual arm64 and riscv configs also seem to build and boot just fine. > But that SYS_NI() thing really does deserve to die, as it was purely > used as a hack for some random timer system calls. > > Comments? Removing the SYS_NI bits is definitely a cleaner solution. Looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolva...@google.com> Tested-by: Sami Tolvanen <samitolva...@google.com> Sami
