Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

* Dominik Brodowski wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 01:03:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > > > > The whole series is available at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

* Dominik Brodowski wrote: > On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 01:03:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > > > > The whole series is available at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/linux.git > > > > >

Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 01:03:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > > The whole series is available at > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/linux.git > > > > syscalls-WIP > > > > > > BTW.,

Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 01:03:54PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > > > The whole series is available at > > > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/linux.git > > > > syscalls-WIP > > > > > > BTW., I'd like all these bits to go

Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

* Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > The whole series is available at > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/linux.git > > > syscalls-WIP > > > > BTW., I'd like all these bits to go through the x86 tree. > > > > What is the expected

Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

* Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > The whole series is available at > > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/brodo/linux.git > > > syscalls-WIP > > > > BTW., I'd like all these bits to go through the x86 tree. > > > > What is the expected merge route of the generic

Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:16:02PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > A few questions remain, from important stuff to bikeshedding: > > > > 1) Is it acceptable to pass the existing struct pt_regs to the sys_*() > >kernel functions in

Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 12:16:02PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Dominik Brodowski wrote: > > > A few questions remain, from important stuff to bikeshedding: > > > > 1) Is it acceptable to pass the existing struct pt_regs to the sys_*() > >kernel functions in emulate_vsyscall(), or

Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

* Dominik Brodowski wrote: > A few questions remain, from important stuff to bikeshedding: > > 1) Is it acceptable to pass the existing struct pt_regs to the sys_*() >kernel functions in emulate_vsyscall(), or should it use a hand-crafted >struct pt_regs

Re: [PATCH 0/7] use struct pt_regs based syscall calling for x86-64

* Dominik Brodowski wrote: > A few questions remain, from important stuff to bikeshedding: > > 1) Is it acceptable to pass the existing struct pt_regs to the sys_*() >kernel functions in emulate_vsyscall(), or should it use a hand-crafted >struct pt_regs instead? I think so: we