From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Cc: wade_farnsworth@mentor.com, stevenrwalter@gmail.com,
will.deacon@arm.com, Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: New ARM asm/syscall.h incompatible? (commit bf2c9f9866928df60157bc4f1ab39f93a32c754e)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 20:14:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120523191439.GC6908@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABqD9hah+26ZNJ8OsvSUFSx-dnxekTSLCkUf-8QXQqZ+mn6kmg@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:04:20PM -0500, Will Drewry wrote:
> I'm still curious if it wouldn't make more sense to handle the
> sys_syscall special case prior to any cross-arch (slowpath) code
> involvement rather than truncating the 7th parameter making
> sys_syscall a second class citizen for those cross-arch paths.
It would mean making sys_syscall an explicit special case in the fast
path of syscall entry, which we really don't want to do. It _is_ a
standard syscall, it just happens to have 7 arguments which are
rewritten back to what the syscall actually expects.
As I say, the alternative would be to explicitly test for the syscall
number in the fast path of system call entry and branch away to deal
with it. Adding unnecessary instructions to this fast path for such
a special case when there's already a perfectly reasonable alternative
solution doesn't fill me with any joy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-23 19:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-23 16:01 Will Drewry
2012-05-23 16:45 ` Will Deacon
2012-05-23 18:02 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-24 18:58 ` Roland McGrath
2012-05-23 18:56 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-23 19:04 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-23 19:14 ` Russell King - ARM Linux [this message]
2012-05-24 15:39 ` Will Drewry
2012-05-24 16:11 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2012-05-29 0:47 ` Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120523191439.GC6908@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=olof@lixom.net \
--cc=stevenrwalter@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=wad@chromium.org \
--cc=wade_farnsworth@mentor.com \
--cc=will.deacon@arm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®