From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 17/31] arm64: System calls handling Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:51:52 +0000 Message-ID: <201209101351.52902.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1347035226-18649-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <201209071943.37184.arnd@arndb.de> <20120910095619.GA27042@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:49857 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752490Ab2IJNv5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 09:51:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120910095619.GA27042@arm.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Catalin Marinas Cc: Al Viro , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Monday 10 September 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Yes, I've seen these but since Al's patches are not in mainline, I don't > want to add additional dependencies to the arm64 patches (currently > based on 3.6-rc4). Once they get into mainline, I'll add a patch that > converts arm64 to the generic functions above. > > For kernel_execve(), I think I can simplify it further and not rely on > Al's patches (similar to other architectures doing an SVC from kernel): Hmm, I thought one of the reasons for Al to do his series was to discourage people from doing syscalls from kernel space, but I may be misremembering things. Al? Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:51:52 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v3 17/31] arm64: System calls handling In-Reply-To: <20120910095619.GA27042@arm.com> References: <1347035226-18649-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <201209071943.37184.arnd@arndb.de> <20120910095619.GA27042@arm.com> Message-ID: <201209101351.52902.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Monday 10 September 2012, Catalin Marinas wrote: > Yes, I've seen these but since Al's patches are not in mainline, I don't > want to add additional dependencies to the arm64 patches (currently > based on 3.6-rc4). Once they get into mainline, I'll add a patch that > converts arm64 to the generic functions above. > > For kernel_execve(), I think I can simplify it further and not rely on > Al's patches (similar to other architectures doing an SVC from kernel): Hmm, I thought one of the reasons for Al to do his series was to discourage people from doing syscalls from kernel space, but I may be misremembering things. Al? Arnd