Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] open: add close_range()

From: Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
	David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
	Todd Kjos <tkjos@android.com>,
	"Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	alpha <linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-m68k <linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org>,
	linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	Parisc List <linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org>,
	linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>,
	sparclinux <sparclinux@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] open: add close_range()
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 11:57:04 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190524095701.b7ioi5gg573vmajh@brauner.io> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a26uvqmExJZsezhB+cp2ADM0Ai9jVUKWOFM6kg848bCKg@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 09:43:53AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:33 PM Christian Brauner <christian@brauner.io> 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.

I've split this into two patches and also bumped arm64
__NR_compat_syscalls that I've missed before as you mentioned!

Thanks!
Christian