lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] x86/syscalls: Mark expected switch fall-throughs
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) 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 it?
> > > >
> > > > I think it can die.
> > >
> > > When PTRACE_GET_SYSCALL_INFO is finally squeezed into the kernel,
> > > we could discuss adding PTRACE_SET_SYSCALL_INFO as well, and it
> > > will need syscall_set_arguments().
> >
> > So if that ever happens, then adding the code back isn't rocket
> > science. But if not, then there is no point in carrying the dead horse
> > around another 11 years.
>
> Given that it took me roughly 4 months to get a relatively simple revert
> of commit 5e937a9ae913 accepted into linux-next, adding the code back
> might be time-consuming.
>
> 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 least remove all the unused arguments
which we have on both functions to simplify the whole mess?

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-03-27 23:53    [W:0.049 / U:28.528 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site