* Kyle Huey <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > * Kyle Huey <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> In order to introduce new arch_prctls that are not 64 bit only, rename the > >> existing 64 bit implementation to do_arch_prctl_64(). Also rename the second > >> argument to arch_prctl(), which will no longer always be an address. > > > >> #ifdef CONFIG_X86_64 > >> void entry_SYSCALL_64(void); > >> +long do_arch_prctl_64(struct task_struct *task, int code, unsigned long arg2); > >> #endif > > > > Could you please also rename the weirdly named 'code' argument to 'option', > > to be in line with the existing sys_prctl() interface nomenclature? > > arch_prctl consistently uses 'code' throughout the kernel and in the > main page. This renaming should probably be done separately if > desired. 'arch_prctl' is essentially an x86-ism that arbitrarily changed 'option' to 'code' to implement a sub-option where the option was indeed 'code' - but with _your_ changes it becomes outright misleading and confusing: as the 'code' is not code anymore but one of the several options. The core kernel uses 'option' and we should follow that nomenclature. Thanks, Ingo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
