All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:02:29 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130121060229.GT4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFwPM3qWE7F7nwUVKphVTJb7WE7zPF5artdVw7Xq5Z1UgQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 06:39:09PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> And right now, that HAVE_SYSCALL_WRAPPERS does make it much harder to
> think about the header file changes.

Agreed.

> > FWIW, there's another bit of ugliness around that area - all these
> > #define __SC_BLAH3, etc., all of the same form.  This stuff begs for
> > something like
> > #define __MAP1(m,t,a) m(t,a)
> > #define __MAP2(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP1(m,__VA_ARGS__)
> > #define __MAP3(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP2(m,__VA_ARGS__)
> > #define __MAP4(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP3(m,__VA_ARGS__)
> > #define __MAP5(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP4(m,__VA_ARGS__)
> > #define __MAP6(m,t,a,...) m(t,a) __MAP5(m,__VA_ARGS__)
> > #define __MAP(n,...) __MAP##n(__VA_ARGS__)
> > with __MAP(x,__SC_DECL,__VA_ARGS__) instead of __SC_DECL##x(__VA_ARGS__)
> > etc. in users...

... with missing commas added, of course.

> Well, I can see both sides. The above is the nice and dense
> declaration model with less duplication, but christ, it's hard for
> people to wrap their minds around unless they've seen it a million
> times. It really does take some getting used to, and the long-form can
> be easier to understand.

Umm...  Even with
/*
 * __MAP - apply a given macro to all syscall arguments.
 * __MAP(n, m, t1, a1, ..., tn, an) will expand to
 *      m(t1,a1), m(t2,a2), ..., m(tn, an)
 * Note that the first argument of __MAP must be equal to the number of
 * type, name pairs in the list.  The list itself (all arguments of __MAP
 * starting with the 3rd one) is in the form we pass to SYSCALL_DEFINE<n>.
 */
slapped on top of it?

> That said, we have so many of those things now when it comes to the
> syscall stuff that the dense form seems to be called for just to be
> consistent.
> 
> So go wild if you have the energy for it. I'm not going to pull that
> for 3.8, though.

No, that's obviously next cycle fodder, along with the sick tricks for
generating compat wrappers on s390 if Martin can live with those.

BTW, grep for asmlinkage; it's amazing how much cargo-culting is going
on with it ;-/  Some of the instances are syscalls yet to be converted
to SYSCALL_DEFINE<n>; even more of COMPAT_SYSCALL_DEFINE<n>-to-be.  We
also have a bunch of declarations in syscalls.h and compat.h - those
are fine.  _Some_ of the rest might be legitimate - ia64 and i386 have
non-trivial asmlinkage expansion and some (but not all) of arch/{x86,ia64}
instances do make sense.  Not all of those - e.g. things like
FPU_divide_by_zero() have no business being regparm(0); they are only called
from C code and forcing their arguments on stack is a pure pessimization for
no reason whatsoever.  Everything else in arch/* is magic green marker,
AFAICS...

There are some borderline cases - e.g. I'm not sure if having sys_recv
done *not* via SYSCALL_DEFINE() is deliberate; it might cut down on
some overhead (the sucker's calling sys_recvfrom(), which does normalizations,
which make normalizing in sys_recv() pointless).  OTOH, sys_send *is*
done as SYSCALL_DEFINE, even though it ends up calling sys_sendto()...

  reply	other threads:[~2013-01-21  6:02 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-01-14  9:42 Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit Nicolas Dichtel
2013-01-19  6:38 ` Al Viro
2013-01-20  3:12   ` Al Viro
2013-01-20 20:53     ` Linus Torvalds
2013-01-20 21:28       ` Al Viro
2013-01-21  1:22       ` Al Viro
2013-01-21  1:40         ` Linus Torvalds
2013-01-21  2:30           ` Al Viro
2013-01-21  2:39             ` Linus Torvalds
2013-01-21  6:02               ` Al Viro [this message]
2013-01-21 22:55             ` [RFC] making HAVE_SYSCALL_WRAPPERS universal (Re: Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit) Al Viro
2013-01-22 12:47               ` James Hogan
2013-01-22 12:47                 ` James Hogan
2013-01-22 14:23                 ` Al Viro
2013-01-22 13:16               ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-22 15:33               ` Arnd Bergmann
2013-01-21  9:00     ` Issues with "x86, um: switch to generic fork/vfork/clone" commit Nicolas Dichtel
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-11-10  4:36 Michel Lespinasse
2012-11-10  4:51 ` Al Viro
2012-11-10  4:57   ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-11-10  5:33     ` Al Viro
2012-11-10  5:47       ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-11-10  7:33         ` Al Viro
2012-11-10  8:08           ` Michel Lespinasse
2012-11-10 18:59           ` Al Viro

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20130121060229.GT4939@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nicolas.dichtel@6wind.com \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.