Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of running thread

[Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers-vg+e7yoeK/dWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Josh Triplett josh-iaAMLnmF4UmaiuxdJuQwMA@public.gmane.org wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:34:35PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
>> 
>> > On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> > 
>> >> On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
>> >> > ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx-hfZtesqFncYOwBW4kG4KsQ@public.gmane.org wrote:
>> >> > Sounds fair. What is the recommended typing for "ptr" then ?
>> >> > uint32_t ** or uint32_t * ?
>> >> > 
>> >> > It would be expected to pass a "uint32_t *" for the set
>> >> > operation, but the "get" operation requires a "uint32_t **".
>> >> 
>> >> Well, you can't change the types depending on the opcode, so you need to stick
>> >> with **.
>> > 
>> > Alternatively you make it:
>> > 
>> >  (opcode, *newptr, **oldptr, flags);
>> 
>> I'm tempted to stick to (opcode, **ptr, flags), because
>> other syscalls that have "*newptr", "**oldptr"
>> typically have them because they save the current state
>> into oldptr, and set the new state, which is really
>> not the case here. To eliminate any risk of confusion,
>> I am tempted to keep a single "**ptr".
>> 
>> Unless someone has a better idea...
> 
> Either that or you could define it as "void *" and interpret it based on
> flags, but that seems unfortunate; let's not imitate ioctl-style
> typeless parameters.  I'd stick with the double pointer and the current
> behavior.

Allright, will do! Thanks for the feedback :)

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com