----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 5:11 PM, Josh Triplett josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 09:34:35PM +0000, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: >> ----- On Jan 27, 2016, at 12:37 PM, Thomas Gleixner tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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... > > Either that or you could define it as "void *" and interpret it based on > flags, but that seems unfortunate; let's not imitate ioctl-style > typeless parameters. I'd stick with the double pointer and the current > behavior. Allright, will do! Thanks for the feedback :) Mathieu -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com -- 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
