[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 5/5] uaccess: Rename user_access_begin/end() to user_full_access_begin/end()

Le 03/04/2020 à 20:01, Linus Torvalds a écrit :
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:21 AM Christophe Leroy
> <> wrote:
>> Now we have user_read_access_begin() and user_write_access_begin()
>> in addition to user_access_begin().
> I realize Al asked for this, but I don't think it really adds anything
> to the series.
> The "full" makes the names longer, but not really any more legible.
> So I like 1-4, but am unconvinced about 5 and would prefer that to be
> dropped. Sorry for the bikeshedding.

Yes I was not sure about it, that's the reason why I added it as the
last patch of the series.

And in the meantime, we see Robots reporting build failures due to
additional use of user_access_begin() in parallele to this change, so I
guess it would anyway be a challenge to perform such a change without

> And I like this series much better without the cookie that was
> discussed, and just making the hard rule be that they can't nest.
> Some architecture may obviously use a cookie internally if they have
> some nesting behavior of their own, but it doesn't look like we have
> any major reason to expose that as the actual interface.
> The only other question is how to synchronize this? I'm ok with it
> going through the ppc tree, for example, and just let others build on
> that. Maybe using a shared immutable branch with 5.6 as a base?

Michael, can you take patches 1 to 4 ?

Otherwise, can you ack patch 4 to enable merging through another tree ?


 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-05 20:48    [W:0.134 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site