On Mon, 13 Apr 2015, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> [ Andrew, can you take this for the 4.1 merge window ? ]
You probably mean 4.2, right?
This fails the basic test for exposure in linux-next, adds syscalls
without the explicit ack of any x86 maintainer and exposes a user
space ABI with a magic undocumented flags argument.
> This patch only adds the system call to x86.
So the changes to
> include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h | 4 +-
are just cosmetic, right?
> +/* System call membarrier "flags" argument. */
> +enum {
> + /*
> + * Query whether the rest of the specified flags are supported,
> + * without performing synchronization.
> + */
Docbook has support for enums.
> + MEMBARRIER_QUERY = (1 << 31),
> +};
Why is this an anonymous enum?
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
So documentation is SMP only, right?
> +/*
Docbook comments start with "/**"
> + * sys_membarrier - issue memory barrier on all running threads
> + * @flags: MEMBARRIER_QUERY:
> + * Query whether the rest of the specified flags are supported,
> + * without performing synchronization.
@flags: Explain what this is for, not what a particular implemented
value is used for. The values should be proper documented
in the enum
Why is this an int and not a named enum?
Why is this named flags and not given a descriptive name? If I
understand your changelog correctly you want to implement other
synchronization modes than the current synchronize_sched. So mode
might be a proper name.
Why is MEMBARRIER_QUERY not a proper operation mode and simply returns
the supported modes instead of doing it backwards and asking whether
a specific value is supported?
> + * On uniprocessor systems, this system call simply returns 0 after
> + * validating the arguments, so user-space knows it is implemented.
And the exact point of knowing this is?
> + */
> +SYSCALL_DEFINE1(membarrier, int, flags)
> +{
> + int retval;
> +
> + retval = membarrier_validate_flags(flags);
> + if (retval)
> + goto end;
> + if (unlikely(flags & MEMBARRIER_QUERY) || num_online_cpus() == 1)
> + goto end;
So why not doing the obvious?
enum modes {
QUERY = 0,
FULL_SYNC = 1 << 0,
};
#define IMPLEMENTED_MODES (FULL_SYNC)
switch (mode) {
case FULL_SYNC:
synchronize_sched_on_smp();
return 0;
case QUERY:
return IMPLEMENTED_MODES;
}
return -EINVAL;
And later on you do
enum modes {
QUERY = 0,
FULL_SYNC = 1 << 0,
+ MAGIC_SYNC = 1 << 1,
};
-#define IMPLEMENTED_MODES (FULL_SYNC)
+#define IMPLEMENTED_MODES (FULL_SYNC | MAGIC_SYNC)
All you need to make sure is that any mode is a power of 2.
Hmm?
Thanks,
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
