Re: [RFC PATCH v11 for 4.15 01/24] Restartable sequences system call

[Mathieu Desnoyers]

----- On Nov 14, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Ben Maurer bmaurer@xxxxxx wrote:

>>ÂÂÂÂÂÂ int rseq(struct rseq * rseq, uint32_t rseq_len, int flags, uint32_t sig);
> 
> 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'm assuming that if we ever want to use a per-thread userspace/kernel ABI
> we'll want to use this field given the difficulty of getting adoption of
> registration, the need to involve glibc, etc. It seems like there could be
> future use cases of this TLS area that have nothing to do with rseq.

I proposed that approach back in 2016 ("tls abi" system call), and the feedback
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.

Thanks,

Mathieu


-- 
Mathieu Desnoyers
EfficiOS Inc.
http://www.efficios.com