On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 00:47:17 +0000 (UTC) Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote:
> ----- On Nov 6, 2017, at 7:37 PM, Nicholas Piggin npig...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 15:56:40 -0500 > > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoy...@efficios.com> wrote: > > > >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > >> b/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > >> index b1980fcd56d5..972a7d68c143 100644 > >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h > >> @@ -396,5 +396,6 @@ > >> #define __NR_kexec_file_load 382 > >> #define __NR_statx 383 > >> #define __NR_rseq 384 > >> +#define __NR_cpu_opv 385 > > > > Sorry for bike shedding, but could we invest a few more keystrokes to > > make these names a bit more readable? > > Whenever I try to make variables or function names more explicit, I can > literally feel my consciousness (taking the form of an angry Peter Zijlstra) > breathing down my neck asking me to make them shorter. So I guess this is > where it becomes a question of taste. Specialist syscall is a bit different than a common function or variable though. > > I think the "rseq" syscall name is short, to the point, and should be mostly > fine. I'm not sure if it's really "to the point". I think kexec_file_load is better than kfload, for example :) > For "cpu_opv", it was just a short name that fit the bill until a > better idea would come. > > I'm open to suggestions. Any color preference ? ;-) What can you do within 16 characters?
