----- On Nov 14, 2017, at 3:39 PM, Ben Maurer bmaurer-b10kYP2dOMg@public.gmane.org wrote:

quoted

      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