From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932337AbdA3Prw (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:47:52 -0500 Received: from mail.skyhub.de ([78.46.96.112]:49944 "EHLO mail.skyhub.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750885AbdA3PrD (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jan 2017 10:47:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 16:45:21 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Ingo Molnar Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , Fenghua Yu , "H . Peter Anvin" , Linus Torvalds , Oleg Nesterov , Peter Zijlstra , Rik van Riel , Thomas Gleixner , Yu-cheng Yu Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86/fpu: Remove 'kbuf' parameter from the copy_xstate_to_user() APIs Message-ID: <20170130154521.rtmqgsqkchdvxucv@pd.tnic> References: <1485426179-13681-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> <1485426179-13681-5-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org> <20170127101656.r6djweg3snx4n7k2@pd.tnic> <20170130095728.GA26142@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170130095728.GA26142@gmail.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20161014 (1.7.1) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:57:28AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > Would anyone object to using u32 in these prototypes? Well, would there be any disadvantage to forcing them to u32? Potentially by something else wanting to use those interfaces besides the regset thing and that something else doesn't like u32s? Otherwise, I don't see a problem. I mean, if 4G are not enough for xstate dimensions then we have a whole different problem. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.