On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Aug 26, 2014 7:29 PM, "Alexei Starovoitov" <ast@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi Ingo, David, >> >> posting whole thing again as RFC to get feedback on syscall only. >> If syscall bpf(int cmd, union bpf_attr *attr, unsigned int size) is ok, >> I'll split them into small chunks as requested and will repost without RFC. > > IMO it's much easier to review a syscall if we just look at a > specification of what it does. The code is, in some sense, secondary. 'specification of what it does'... hmm, you mean beyond what's there in commit logs and in Documentation/networking/filter.txt ? Aren't samples at the end give an idea on 'what it does'? I'm happy to add 'specification', I just don't understand yet what it suppose to talk about beyond what's already written. I understand that the patches are missing explanation on 'why' the syscall is being added, but I don't think it's what you're asking... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
