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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <315e7ec2-169c-4c4b-93df-485380bc0852@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <315e7ec2-169c-4c4b-93df-485380bc0852@app.fastmail.com>
From:   Nhat Pham <nphamcs@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 May 2023 16:20:53 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKEwX=NW=sHAkQQw3TPA5tK9O+MC9AwX05=Wp8DRFbRZ4w-JAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/3] cachestat: implement cachestat syscall
To:     Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
        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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, May 6, 2023 at 10:35=E2=80=AFAM Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote=
:
>
> 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 implemente=
d [-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

I took a stab at wiring the new syscall in this follow-up patch:

https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230510195806.2902878-1-nphamcs@gmail.com/

Let me know if I missed something! Review and/or suggestion
is very much appreciated.