Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1629104 > unrolled thread

patch series moving compat syscalls from fs/compat.c

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  patch series moving compat syscalls from fs/compat.c Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-04-24 02:40 +0200
    Re: patch series moving compat syscalls from fs/compat.c Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2017-04-24 03:00 +0200
      Re: patch series moving compat syscalls from fs/compat.c Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2017-04-24 05:00 +0200

#1629104 — patch series moving compat syscalls from fs/compat.c

Hi Al,

I couldn't easily find this patch series posted anywhere (I didn't try
too hard) so I sill just comment here.  I first noticed them in the vfs
tree in linux-next today.

Overall, I like what they day, but when I first created kernel/compat.c
(in 2002), Linus did not want the compat code sprinkled all over the
other files (due to the uglifiying effect of #ifdefs in the C code, and
because the compat layer was only secondary).  He may have changed his
mind since then, but it is worth asking.  The cleanups (including more
static functions) make it worth while for me, at least.

It also might have been worth asking the original (and subsequent)
authors of the code for review and/or comments.

One thing I noticed from a quick look: do_handle_open() could now be static.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1629112

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 10:31:34AM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Al,
> 
> I couldn't easily find this patch series posted anywhere (I didn't try
> too hard) so I sill just comment here.  I first noticed them in the vfs
> tree in linux-next today.
> 
> Overall, I like what they day, but when I first created kernel/compat.c
> (in 2002), Linus did not want the compat code sprinkled all over the
> other files (due to the uglifiying effect of #ifdefs in the C code, and
> because the compat layer was only secondary).  He may have changed his
> mind since then, but it is worth asking.  The cleanups (including more
> static functions) make it worth while for me, at least.
> 
> It also might have been worth asking the original (and subsequent)
> authors of the code for review and/or comments.

	FWIW, the same kind of stuff had been done before (e.g. compat
variants of readv/writev moved to fs/read_write.c, compat aio syscalls
to fs/aio.c, etc.) with no objections from anybody.

The situation with kernel/compat.c is slightly different, but fs/compat.c
contains very little shared infrastructure - almost all of it is straight
"here's compat variant of this syscall, making use of the guts of the
native one".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1629135

Hi Al,

On Mon, 24 Apr 2017 01:55:30 +0100 Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> 	FWIW, the same kind of stuff had been done before (e.g. compat
> variants of readv/writev moved to fs/read_write.c, compat aio syscalls
> to fs/aio.c, etc.) with no objections from anybody.

OK.  I guess I was just suprised by this series out of nowhere.

-- 
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web