Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] x86: Support compiling out userspace I/O (iopl and ioperm)

[josh@joshtriplett.org]

On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:20:28AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 10/29/2014 10:17 AM, josh@joshtriplett.org wrote:
> >>
> >> But this is entirely a style decision, so I leave it up to the x86
> >> maintainers ...
> > 
> > I can certainly do that if the x86 maintainers prefer, but that tends to
> > produce a net increase in lines of code, as well as duplicating all the
> > function prototypes, which to me seems more error-prone.  If the
> > stub versions contained any code, rather than just becoming no-ops, I'd
> > definitely do that.
> > 
> 
> I concur with this style choice.

To clarify: you concur with Kees's suggested change or with the style I
used in my patch?

> >> Another nit may be that we should call this CONFIG_SYSCALL_IOPL or
> >> CONFIG_SYSCALL_IOPERM in keeping with the other CONFIG_SYSCALL_*
> >> naming thread? Again, I don't really care strongly beyond really
> >> wanting to use this new feature! :)
> > 
> > I don't feel strongly about the naming.  Ingo?
> 
> It is sort of a special case here, as this reflects more than one syscall.

As well as four VT ioctls. :)

- Josh Triplett