[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20061028092906.6c1562e3.akpm@osdl.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:29:06 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: why "probe_kernel_address()", not "probe_user_address()"?
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:56:24 -0400 (EDT)
"Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@...dspring.com> wrote:
>
> it seems odd that the purpose of the "probe_kernel_address()" macro
> is, in fact, to probe a *user* address (from linux/uaccess.h):
>
> #define probe_kernel_address(addr, retval) \
> ({ \
> long ret; \
> \
> inc_preempt_count(); \
> ret = __get_user(retval, addr); \
> dec_preempt_count(); \
> ret; \
> })
>
> given that that routine is referenced only 5 places in the entire
> source tree, wouldn't it be more meaningful to use a more appropriate
> name?
>
You'll notice that all callers are indeed probing kernel addresses. The
function _could_ be used for user addresses and could perhaps be called
probe_address().
One of the reasons this wrapper exists is to communicate that the
__get_user() it is in fact not being used to access user memory.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists