Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] uaccess: Rename user_access_begin/end() to user_full_access_begin/end() | From | Christophe Leroy <> | Date | Sun, 5 Apr 2020 20:47:26 +0200 |
| |
Le 03/04/2020 à 20:01, Linus Torvalds a écrit : > On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 12:21 AM Christophe Leroy > <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr> 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 coordination.
> 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 ?
Christophe
|  |