From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on archive.lwn.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by archive.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9F97DD31 for ; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:35:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753303AbeC3PfW (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:35:22 -0400 Received: from ms.lwn.net ([45.79.88.28]:59900 "EHLO ms.lwn.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752502AbeC3PfU (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2018 11:35:20 -0400 Received: from lwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A750AAB; Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 09:35:18 -0600 From: Jonathan Corbet To: Dominik Brodowski Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, x86@kernel.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, luto@amacapital.net Subject: Re: [PATCH] syscalls: define and explain goal to not call syscalls in the kernel Message-ID: <20180330093518.3d8a92f3@lwn.net> In-Reply-To: <20180325162527.GA17492@light.dominikbrodowski.net> References: <20180325162527.GA17492@light.dominikbrodowski.net> Organization: LWN.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 18:25:27 +0200 Dominik Brodowski wrote: > As there have been multiple inquiries on the rationale of my patchsets > removing in-kernel calls to sys_xyzzy(), here is an updated patch 01/NN > which I will push upstream for v4.17-rc1. I will also include a reference > to this mail (and therefore to the explanation below) in all related > patches of the series. Any improvements, hints, suggestions, spelling > fixes, and/or objections? I have no objections to the text, but I do wonder about the placement. The "adding syscalls" document isn't about *invoking* them; I suspect that few people will see it there. The coding-style document isn't quite right either, but I wonder if it might not be a better place in the short term? What we may really need is an "assorted rules" document that sits near coding style; we can put stuff like this text, "volatile considered harmful", and so on there. Thanks, jon -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html