On 01/15, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 05:38:09PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote: > > > > But may be > > > > if (syscall_get_nr() != -1) > > syscall_set_arguments(...); > > > > will look a bit more consistent? > > I'm sorry, but I didn't follow. As we've just set the syscall number with > syscall_set_nr(), why would we want to call syscall_get_nr() right after > that to obtain the syscall number? Mostly for grep. We have more syscall_get_nr() != -1 checks. Even right after syscall_set_nr-like code, see putreg32(). I think this needs another helper (which can have more users) and some cleanups. But this is another issue, so please forget. I agree that syscall_get_nr() in this code will probably just add the unnecessary confusion. Oleg.
