[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20121119143236.GA3296@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:32:36 +0200
From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@...ux.intel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Rob Clark <rob.clark@...aro.org>,
Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
patches@...aro.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Jamie Lokier <jamie@...reable.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ARM: add get_user() support for 8 byte types
On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 02:39:41PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thursday 15 November 2012, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > I still haven't heard a conclusive argument why we need to use get_user()
> > > rather than copy_from_user() in the DRM code. Is this about a fast path
> > > where you want to shave off a few cycles for each call, or does this
> > > simplify the code structure, or something else?
> >
> > well, it is mostly because it seemed like a good idea to first try to
> > solve the root issue, rather than having to fix things up in each
> > driver when someone from x86-world introduces a 64b get_user()..
>
> As pointed out by hpa earlier, x86-32 doesn't have a 64b get_user
> either. I don't think we have a lot of drivers that are used only
> on 64-bit x86 and on 32-bit ARM but not on 32-bit x86.
Ouch. I didn't realize that x86-32 doesn't have it. All the systems
where I've run the new code are 64bit so I never noticed the problem.
I see there was a patch [1] posted a long time ago to implement 64bit
get_user() on x86-32. I wonder what happened to it?
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2004/4/20/96
--
Ville Syrjälä
Intel OTC
--
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