On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 10:20:28AM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. To clarify: you concur with Kees's suggested change or with the style I used in my patch? > >> 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. As well as four VT ioctls. :) - Josh Triplett _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
