Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Ben Maurer <bmaurer@fb.com>
To:     Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
CC:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>,
        "Andy Lutomirski" <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Dave Watson <davejwatson@fb.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-api <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Paul Turner <pjt@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
        "Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Andrew Hunter <ahh@google.com>,
        Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>, Chris Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v11 for 4.15 01/24] Restartable sequences system call
Thread-Topic: [RFC PATCH v11 for 4.15 01/24] Restartable sequences system call
Thread-Index: AQHTXYPhmIqd6HY5PUe1T5SV8sIkp6MUVZrNj4p9WjDwdZNQtg==
Date:   Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:48:16 +0000
Message-ID: <CY4PR15MB1688889C3A48AEBDD7C3AC5ACF280@CY4PR15MB1688.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20171114200414.2188-1-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <20171114200414.2188-2-mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com>
 <CY4PR15MB168866BFDCFECF81B7EF4CF1CF280@CY4PR15MB1688.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>,<574606484.15158.1510692743725.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
In-Reply-To: <574606484.15158.1510692743725.JavaMail.zimbra@efficios.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: fb.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: bbc17546-320b-4e1a-ad4d-08d52ba969db
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Nov 2017 21:48:16.6702
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 8ae927fe-1255-47a7-a2af-5f3a069daaa2
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY4PR15MB1750
X-OriginatorOrg: fb.com
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:,, definitions=2017-11-14_11:,,
 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Reason: safe
X-FB-Internal: Safe
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


>>>=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 int rseq(struct rseq * rseq, uint32_t rseq_len, int f=
lags, uint32_t sig);
>>=20
>> Really dumb question -- and one I'm sorry to bring up at the last minute=
. Should
>> we consider making the syscall name something more generic "register_tls=
_abi"?
> I proposed that approach back in 2016 ("tls abi" system call), and the fe=
edback
> I received back then is that it was preferred to have a dedicated "rseq" =
system
> call than an "open ended" and generic "tls abi" system call.

Ultimately I'm fine either way. I do think that in the past few months of r=
eview it has become clear that creating this tls abi requires a fair bit of=
 work. It'd be a shame to see a future attempt to use such an ABI made diff=
icult by forcing the author to figure out the registration process yet agai=
n. I assume the maintainers of glibc would also like to avoid the need to r=
egister multiple ABIs.

-b=

From 1584084474884157867@xxx Tue Nov 14 23:04:38 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1584073814600987930
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread