On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:45 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 12:02:37PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 12:27 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Wire up the clone6() call on x86.
> > >
> > > This patch only wires up clone6() on x86. Some of the arches look like they
> > > need special assembly massaging and it is probably smarter if the
> > > appropriate arch maintainers would do the actual wiring.
> >
> > Why do some architectures need special cases here? I'd prefer to have
> > new system calls always get defined in a way that avoids this, and
> > have a common entry point for everyone.
> >
> > Looking at the m68k sys_clone comment in
> > arch/m68k/kernel/process.c, it seems that this was done as an
> > optimization to deal with an inferior ABI. Similar code is present
> > in h8300, ia64, nios2, and sparc. If all of them just do this to
> > shave off a few cycles from the system call entry, I really
> > couldn't care less.
>
> I'm happy to wire all arches up at the same time in the next revision. I
> just wasn't sure why some of them were assemblying the living hell out
> of clone; especially ia64. I really didn't want to bother touching all
> of this just for an initial RFC.
Don't worry about doing all architectures for the RFC, I mainly want this
to be done consistently by the time it gets into linux-next.
One thing to figure out though is whether we need the stack_size argument
that a couple of architectures pass. It's usually hardwired to zero,
but not all the time, and I don't know the history of this.
Arnd
