From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757022AbaJ2R7A (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:59:00 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:57441 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756304AbaJ2R65 (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Oct 2014 13:58:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:58:51 -0700 From: josh@joshtriplett.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Kees Cook , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , LKML , "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" , "x86@kernel.org" , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] x86: Support compiling out userspace I/O (iopl and ioperm) Message-ID: <20141029175851.GA19076@cloud> References: <7159269982aac3b732af2c33a2e3d04e2048bdfb.1414598511.git.josh@joshtriplett.org> <9d77d0e4df8feb2cb55fb21689e016a3145cb7f8.1414598511.git.josh@joshtriplett.org> <20141029171754.GA18888@cloud> <545121DC.5050305@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <545121DC.5050305@zytor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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