On Wed, 19 Feb 2025, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > That label is called `trace_a_syscall' in arch/mips/kernel/scall64-o32.S > > instead. To bring some order and avoid an inaccuracy here should the odd > > one be matched to the other three? > > Apparently, there are two instances of syscall_trace_entry(), one > n32_syscall_trace_entry(), one trace_a_syscall(), and each of them > is calling syscall_trace_enter(), not to be confused with > syscall_trace_entry(): Oh dear! > I'd change the wording of my comment rather than try to disentangle this. > After all, the most important here is that the new syscall number is > loaded from regs[2] right after the syscall_trace_enter() invocation. Right. > Would you be OK with the following wording: > /* > * New syscall number has to be assigned to regs[2] because it is > * loaded from there unconditionally after syscall_trace_enter() > * invocation. May I suggest "[...] after return from syscall_trace_enter() invocation." instead? Minor reformatting might be required for better visual alignment though. Maciej
