Re: [PATCH v2] syscalls: Cleanup references to sys_lookup_dcookie()
Sohil Mehta <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.ports.m68k,gmane.linux.kernel.api,gmane.linux.kernel.cross-arch,gmane.linux.ports.alpha,gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel,gmane.linux.ports.ia64,gmane.linux.ports.mips,gmane.linux.ports.parisc,gmane.linux.ports.ppc64.devel,gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel,gmane.linux.ports.sparc,gmane.linux.kernel.perf.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Arnd, is this a good candidate for 6.7? Though old, the patch applies
cleanly on 6.6-rc4. I can re-send this one if you would prefer that.
On 8/3/2023 2:44 PM, Sohil Mehta wrote:
> On 7/10/2023 11:51 AM, Sohil Mehta wrote:
>> commit 'be65de6b03aa ("fs: Remove dcookies support")' removed the
>> syscall definition for lookup_dcookie. However, syscall tables still
>> point to the old sys_lookup_dcookie() definition. Update syscall tables
>> of all architectures to directly point to sys_ni_syscall() instead.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sohil Mehta <[email protected]>
>> Reviewed-by: Randy Dunlap <[email protected]>
>> Acked-by: Namhyung Kim <[email protected]> # for perf
>
> The patch has received a couple of additional Acks.
>
Namely,
Acked-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Russell King (Oracle) <[email protected]>
> Does this seem like a valuable cleanup? If so, should it go through the
> asm-generic tree?
>
The main motivation here is to make readers aware upfront (via the
syscall table itself) that no implementation exists for lookup_dcookie
instead of them searching for one and realizing the same. The syscall
tables do something similar for _sysctl().
Please let me know if this change seems unnecessary. I can drop the
annoying pings in that case.
Thanks,
Sohil