[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0901071314490.3057@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:24:24 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
Peter Morreale <pmorreale@...ell.com>,
Sven Dietrich <SDietrich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> I appreciate this is sample code, but using __get_user() on
> non-userspace pointers messes up architectures which have separate
> user/kernel spaces (eg the old 4G/4G split for x86-32). Do we have an
> appropriate function for kernel space pointers? Is this a good reason
> to add one?
Yes, you're right.
We could do the whole "oldfs = get_fs(); set_fs(KERNEL_DS); ..
set_fs(oldfs);" crud, but it would probably be better to just add an
architected accessor. Especially since it's going to generally just be a
#define get_kernel_careful(val,p) __get_user(val,p)
for most architectures.
We've needed that before (and yes, we've simply mis-used __get_user() on
x86 before rather than add it).
Linus
--
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