Re: [RFC PATCH for 4.15 10/14] cpu_opv: Wire up powerpc system call

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 00:47:17 +0000 (UTC)
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> ----- On Nov 6, 2017, at 7:37 PM, Nicholas Piggin npiggin@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> > On Mon,  6 Nov 2017 15:56:40 -0500
> > Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> >> b/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> >> index b1980fcd56d5..972a7d68c143 100644
> >> --- a/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/include/uapi/asm/unistd.h
> >> @@ -396,5 +396,6 @@
> >>  #define __NR_kexec_file_load	382
> >>  #define __NR_statx		383
> >>  #define __NR_rseq		384
> >> +#define __NR_cpu_opv		385  
> > 
> > Sorry for bike shedding, but could we invest a few more keystrokes to
> > make these names a bit more readable?  
> 
> Whenever I try to make variables or function names more explicit, I can
> literally feel my consciousness (taking the form of an angry Peter Zijlstra)
> breathing down my neck asking me to make them shorter. So I guess this is
> where it becomes a question of taste.

Specialist syscall is a bit different than a common function or variable
though.

> 
> I think the "rseq" syscall name is short, to the point, and should be mostly
> fine.

I'm not sure if it's really "to the point". I think kexec_file_load
is better than kfload, for example :)

> For "cpu_opv", it was just a short name that fit the bill until a
> better idea would come.
> 
> I'm open to suggestions. Any color preference ? ;-)

What can you do within 16 characters?