On 10/29/2014 10:17 AM, josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >> But this is entirely a style decision, so I leave it up to the x86 >> maintainers ... > > I can certainly do that if the x86 maintainers prefer, but that tends to > produce a net increase in lines of code, as well as duplicating all the > function prototypes, which to me seems more error-prone. If the > stub versions contained any code, rather than just becoming no-ops, I'd > definitely do that. > I concur with this style choice. >> Another nit may be that we should call this CONFIG_SYSCALL_IOPL or >> CONFIG_SYSCALL_IOPERM in keeping with the other CONFIG_SYSCALL_* >> naming thread? Again, I don't really care strongly beyond really >> wanting to use this new feature! :) > > I don't feel strongly about the naming. Ingo? It is sort of a special case here, as this reflects more than one syscall. -hpa _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
