Re: [PATCH] rseq: update kernel fields in lockstep with CONFIG_DEBUG_RSEQ

[Ingo Molnar]

* Michael Jeanson <mjeanson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> >> I always find it odd that the "source" argument comes first and 
> >> the "destination" argument comes second in all put_user() APIs, 
> >> compared to memcpy, WRITE_ONCE() and all assignments (e.g. 
> >> operator "=" LHS vs RHS). Choosing a different argument order 
> >> therefore made sense with a naming different from "*put_user", but 
> >> not so much if we use a derived naming.
> > 
> > Yeah, put_user()'s oddity is a random historic idiosyncrasy that we 
> > want to preserve in derived naming to reduce the potential for 
> > confusion.
> 
> Would that be ok?
> 
>   rseq_unsafe_put_user(t, value, field, error_label)

Yeah, I think so.

Thanks,

	Ingo