Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757061AbcDGQwO (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:52:14 -0400 Received: from mail-ig0-f196.google.com ([209.85.213.196]:36102 "EHLO mail-ig0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756545AbcDGQwM (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:52:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1459789313-4917-1-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <1459789313-4917-2-git-send-email-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com> <5702A037.60200@zytor.com> <492303698.44994.1459799188052.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <856357054.45028.1459802903401.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com> <5703E191.2040707@redhat.com> <20160405164722.GB3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <570621E5.7060306@redhat.com> <20160407103158.GP3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> <570638D9.7010108@redhat.com> <20160407111938.GR3430@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:52:11 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 59EDuobdpSnyBaNqL-F6j2rpE-U Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 1/5] Thread-local ABI system call: cache CPU number of running thread From: Linus Torvalds To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Florian Weimer , Mathieu Desnoyers , "H. Peter Anvin" , Andrew Morton , Russell King , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-api , Paul Turner , Andrew Hunter , Andy Lutomirski , Andi Kleen , Dave Watson , Chris Lameter , Ben Maurer , rostedt , "Paul E. McKenney" , Josh Triplett , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Michael Kerrisk , Boqun Feng Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1358 Lines: 31 On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:39 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > Because if not, then this discussion is done for. Stop with the > f*cking idiotic "let's look at some kernel size and user-space size > and try to match them up". The kernel doesn't care. The kernel MUST > NOT care. The kernel will touch one single word, and that's all the > kernel does, and user space had better be able make up their own > semantics around that. .. and btw - if people aren't sure that that is a "good enough" interface, then I'm sure as hell not going to merge that patch anyway. Andy mentions rseq. Yeah, I'm not going to merge anything where part of the discussion is "and we might want to do something else for X". Either the suggested patches are useful and generic enough that people can do this, or they aren't. If people can agree that "yes, this whole cpu id cache is a great interface that we can build up interesting user-space constructs around", then great. Such a new kernel interface may be worth merging. But if people cannot be convinced that it is sufficient, then I don't want to merge some half-arsed interface that generates these kinds of discussions. So the fact that currently makes me go "no way will I merge any of this" is the very fact that these discussions continue and are still going on. Linus