From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S936254AbcA0WLz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:11:55 -0500
Received: from relay4-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.196]:44617 "EHLO
	relay4-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S934251AbcA0WLu (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:11:50 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:11:42 -0800
From: Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
To: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Andrew Hunter <ahh@google.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>,
        Chris Lameter <cl@linux.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>, rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of
 running thread
Message-ID: <20160127221142.GA8935@cloud>
References: <1453913683-28915-1-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <1453913683-28915-2-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601271813290.3886@nanos>
 <671969438.6129.1453915918933.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601271832330.3886@nanos>
 <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601271836510.3886@nanos>
 <974364259.6329.1453930475174.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <974364259.6329.1453930475174.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:34:35PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@linutronix.de 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@linutronix.de 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.