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 S1161685AbcA0Vg6 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:36:58 -0500
Received: from mail.efficios.com ([78.47.125.74]:50736 "EHLO mail.efficios.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S934540AbcA0Vei (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 27 Jan 2016 16:34:38 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 21:34:35 +0000 (UTC)
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: 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>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        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>
Message-ID: <974364259.6329.1453930475174.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1601271836510.3886@nanos>
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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number
 of running thread
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [78.47.125.74]
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.6.0_GA_1178 (ZimbraWebClient - FF43 (Linux)/8.6.0_GA_1178)
Thread-Topic: getcpu_cache system call: cache CPU number of running thread
Thread-Index: CeKMlw0bo/BGpC6QIxbwSmXWUgc6Fg==
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

----- 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...

Thanks,

Mathieu

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