From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: josh@joshtriplett.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] x86: Support compiling out userspace I/O (iopl
	and ioperm)
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:58:51 -0700
Message-ID: <20141029175851.GA19076@cloud>
References: <7159269982aac3b732af2c33a2e3d04e2048bdfb.1414598511.git.josh@joshtriplett.org>
	<9d77d0e4df8feb2cb55fb21689e016a3145cb7f8.1414598511.git.josh@joshtriplett.org>
	<CAGXu5jKCuWmbUgNtnVWC2JQF3ML_SQQwBMooVynsbBO8cDLudA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20141029171754.GA18888@cloud> <545121DC.5050305@zytor.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <545121DC.5050305@zytor.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/virtualization/>
List-Post: <mailto:virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization>,
	<mailto:virtualization-request@lists.linux-foundation.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>, "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org" <virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.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