From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A60CC2D0E4 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 18:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116D222453 for ; Sun, 15 Nov 2020 18:35:56 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="NShRjNRI"; dkim=permerror (0-bit key) header.d=linutronix.de header.i=@linutronix.de header.b="fOWzK/LR" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726923AbgKOSfz (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Nov 2020 13:35:55 -0500 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([193.142.43.55]:36400 "EHLO galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726741AbgKOSfz (ORCPT ); Sun, 15 Nov 2020 13:35:55 -0500 From: Thomas Gleixner DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020; t=1605465353; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=anm5dflcALDEl10nSUL87cp/zivIAPJR1id9Mr69p9o=; b=NShRjNRIBCGeSMMBw8XvaSEO3XpsdNPG3ez9vkEs8dTbN0kQCSptOLXAif51Ah9fguDoVk 7t7xeabjmh+MnGe9tmDNSrMzxu3EHAn7LIaHifs3QaBydgNFSQ3i04dEsFErJFBkCVsmEB mm+0Q2gHinuoAxN45TQRF9GS8mm3aVdCgOqbkUGiVpemt/1e8cLHI+j2ik1xhFLXNe/h5n e72eynPimqqp9+ekorJnUxwwGJnuVrtEDOTBVAFJo4yao2yrh/cXGEtRCFx8EpnM1aDmMd MQLFSOY7X54dFOjfVZ8tsVuEF2jJ8yTmQR5D58wSI/imKRy0OtD+OvmBsDonOQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linutronix.de; s=2020e; t=1605465353; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=anm5dflcALDEl10nSUL87cp/zivIAPJR1id9Mr69p9o=; b=fOWzK/LR7JTAH7B1xOZSD4L6kGGVJZxb+FbYhM7O3wBQc7o8IjzzeMGZDPPpzubu4O/rHz GY705EuLYG1cBWBg== To: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi Cc: mingo@redhat.com, keescook@chromium.org, arnd@arndb.de, luto@amacapital.net, wad@chromium.org, rostedt@goodmis.org, paul@paul-moore.com, eparis@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi , kernel@collabora.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/10] seccomp: Migrate to use SYSCALL_WORK flag In-Reply-To: <20201114032917.1205658-5-krisman@collabora.com> References: <20201114032917.1205658-1-krisman@collabora.com> <20201114032917.1205658-5-krisman@collabora.com> Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2020 19:35:53 +0100 Message-ID: <87y2j28o3a.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 13 2020 at 22:29, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi wrote: > > +enum syscall_work_bit { > + SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP = 0, enums start at 0, so why do you need an explicit assignment? > +}; > + > +#define _SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP BIT(SYSCALL_WORK_SECCOMP) Do we really have to repeat the nonsense from TIF/_TIF in the naming here? Can we please name this in a way which makes it obvious what is what? Thanks, tglx