From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Catalin Marinas Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 17/31] arm64: System calls handling Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:01:48 +0100 Message-ID: <20120910140148.GD27042@arm.com> References: <1347035226-18649-1-git-send-email-catalin.marinas@arm.com> <201209071943.37184.arnd@arndb.de> <20120910095619.GA27042@arm.com> <201209101351.52902.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:41263 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756958Ab2IJOCb (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2012 10:02:31 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201209101351.52902.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Al Viro , "linux-arch@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 02:51:52PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > 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? If that was the aim, I'm happy to change the code similar to the arch/arm one. But as I said I would wait until Al's patches get into mainline. -- Catalin