Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Feedback-ID: i56a14606:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.9.0-alpha0-386-g2404815117-fm-20230425.001-g24048151
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <315e7ec2-169c-4c4b-93df-485380bc0852@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230505133426.d70a6599d9a729496b68a70c@linux-foundation.org>
References: <20230503013608.2431726-1-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <20230503013608.2431726-3-nphamcs@gmail.com>
 <CAMuHMdWUtb_A-uhXrBg6kC9L2zbC_q3m8oCZoq80ZSJvk6mUAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230505133426.d70a6599d9a729496b68a70c@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Sat, 06 May 2023 19:35:05 +0200
From:   "Arnd Bergmann" <arnd@arndb.de>
To:     "Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc:     "Nhat Pham" <nphamcs@gmail.com>,
        "Johannes Weiner" <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bfoster@redhat.com,
        "Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org>, linux-api@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@meta.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/3] cachestat: implement cachestat syscall
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, May 5, 2023, at 22:34, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 4 May 2023 19:26:11 +0200 Geert Uytterhoeven 
> <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
>
>> >  arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_32.tbl |   1 +
>> >  arch/x86/entry/syscalls/syscall_64.tbl |   1 +
>> 
>> This should be wired up on each and every architecture.
>> Currently we're getting
>> 
>>     <stdin>:1567:2: warning: #warning syscall cachestat not implemented [-Wcpp]
>> 
>> in linux-next for all the missing architectures.
>
> Is that wise?  We risk adding a syscall to an architecture without the
> arch maintainers and testers even knowing about it.
>
> The compile-time nag is there to inform the arch maintainers that a new
> syscall is available and that they should wire it up, run the selftest
> and then ship the code if they're happy with the result.

The usual approach is for the author of a new syscall to
include a patch with all the architecture specific changes
and Cc the architecture maintainers for that.

Note that half the architectures get the entry from
include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h, so adding it there
does not necessarily trigger adding each maintainer
from scripts/get_maintainer.pl.

The only real risk in adding a new syscall is passing __u64
register arguments that behave differently across
architectures, or using pointers to data structures that
require a compat handler on some architectures. I watch out
for those as they get sent to me or the linux-arch list,
and this one is fine.

     Arnd