[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] syscalls: define and explain goal to not call syscalls in the kernel

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 09:35:18AM -0600, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> 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?

Well, most of the existing instances where syscalls were called in the
kernel were common codepaths for old and new syscalls or native and compat
syscalls, and syscall multiplexers like sys_ipc() which got replaced or
superseded by many new syscalls. That's what lead me to
Documentation/process/adding-syscalls.rst . I'm happy to move this text to
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst (as new section 21?), or even to
Documentation/process/do-not-call-syscalls.rst . Just let me know what you
prefer me to push upstream.


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-30 20:32    [W:0.051 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site