Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] open: add close_range()
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] open: add close_range()
- From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 09:43:53 +0200
- Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux API <linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jann Horn <jannh@xxxxxxxxxx>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@xxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Shuah Khan <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx>, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>, Todd Kjos <tkjos@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@xxxxxxxxxx>, alpha <linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-m68k <linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Parisc List <linux-parisc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-s390 <linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux-sh list <linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, sparclinux <sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xtensa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arch <linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <20190523163345.q5ynd2ytk7nxcvqf@brauner.io>
- References: <20190522155259.11174-1-christian@brauner.io> <67e4458a-9cc4-d1aa-608c-73ebe9e2f7a3@yandex-team.ru> <20190523163345.q5ynd2ytk7nxcvqf@brauner.io>
On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:33 PM Christian Brauner <christian@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 07:22:17PM +0300, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> > On 22.05.2019 18:52, Christian Brauner wrote:> This adds the close_range() syscall. It allows to efficiently close a range
> > > 22 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> >
> > It would be better to split arch/ wiring into separate patch for better readability.
>
> Ok. You mean only do x86 - seems to be the standard - and then move the
> others into a separate patch? Doesn't seem worth to have a patch
> per-arch, I'd think.
I think I would prefer the first patch to just add the call without wiring it up
anywhere, and a second patch do add it on all architectures including x86.
Arnd
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]