Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:53:28 -0800 | From | Randy Dunlap <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 5/6] syscalls: add define syscall prefix macro |
| |
On 02/08/10 07:48, Jason Baron wrote: > On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 02:01:04PM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 04:21:55PM -0500, Jason Baron wrote: >>> Add a new 'SYSCALL_PREFIX_DEFINE#()' style macro to include/linux/syscalls.h. >>> This allows us to create syscalls via: >>> >>> SYSCALL_PREFIX_DEFINE1(32_, mmap, struct mmap_arg_struct __user *, arg); >>> >>> The standard 'SYSCALL_DEFINE#()' macro forces 'sys_blah', but for the 32 compat >>> calls we want 'sys32_blah'. >> >> Not really. That's what you want for x86. But the generic name for compat syscalls >> is compat_sys_whatever. The arch specific compat syscalls don't follow a common >> naming scheme (yet). >> Especially if you consider the idea to get automated correct sign extension via >> hpa's planned script for compat syscalls it would be good if you would just name >> that define something like SYSCALL_COMPAT.. or COMPAT_SYSCALL.. >> That way it would be easy to add a hook in there. > > So I was trying to keep the names of the arch ia32 compat sys calls the > same, ie 'sys32_blah'. However, I agree a common naming scheme makes > more sense. what about 'arch_compat_sys_blah'? So as to distinguish from > the common compat syscalls 'compat_sys_blah'.
Hi, I can't find my copy of the original posting... sorry about that.
Are these new SYSCALL macros just a shorthand/shortcut to cut down on typing (and/or errors)?
The added level of indirection makes problems for scripts/kernel-doc (well, if any of the syscalls have kernel-doc notation, that is). I'd prefer not to see 2 levels of macros for defining a syscall, but if it has to live, please look into updating scripts/kernel-doc also.
thanks, -- ~Randy
| |