On Tue, 8 Nov 2016 08:20:48 -0800 Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Linus Torvalds > <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > So I definitely approve of the change, but I wonder if we should go > > one step further: > > > > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> extern int task_current_syscall(struct task_struct *target, long *callno, > >> - unsigned long args[6], unsigned int maxargs, > >> - unsigned long *sp, unsigned long *pc); > >> + unsigned long args[6], unsigned long *sp, > >> + unsigned long *pc); > > > > The thing is, in C, having an array in a function declaration is > > pretty much exactly the same as just having a pointer, so from a type > > checking standpoint it doesn't really help all that much (but from a > > "human documentation" side the "args[6]" is much better than "*args"). > > > > However, what would really help type checking is making it a > > structure. And maybe that structure could just contain "callno", "sp" > > and "pc" too? That would not only fix the type checking, it would make > > the calling convention even cleaner. Just have one single structure > > that contains all the relevant data. > > I would propose calling this 'struct seccomp_data'. I'm assuming you mean to use the existing seccomp_data? But isn't that already defined as a user structure? Thus, we can't add sp and pc to it. I can change syscall_get_arguments() to take the seccomp_data as an input, and just fill in the arguments directly. -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
