[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1458247207.9556.28.camel@perches.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:40:07 -0700
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>,
Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
Daniel Stone <daniels@...labora.com>,
Arve Hjønnevåg <arve@...roid.com>,
Riley Andrews <riandrews@...roid.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...ll.ch>,
Greg Hackmann <ghackmann@...gle.com>,
John Harrison <John.C.Harrison@...el.com>,
Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@...el.com>,
linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 2/3] kernel.h: add to_user_ptr()
On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 16:33 -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 15:43 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > > 2016-03-17 Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@...labora.co.uk>:
> > > > 2016-03-17 Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>:
> > > > > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 14:30 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > > > > > This function had copies in 3 different files. Unify them in
> > > > > > kernel.h.
> > > > > This is only used by gpu/drm.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is a poor name for a generic function
> > > > > that would be in kernel.h.
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't there an include file in linux/drm that's
> > > > > appropriate for this. Maybe drmP.h
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe prefix this function name with drm_ too.
> > > > No, the next patch adds a user to drivers/staging (which will be moved
> > > > to drivers/dma-buf) soon. Maybe move to a different header in
> > > > include/linux/? not sure which one.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, there's this that might conflict:
> > > > >
> > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:#define to_user_ptr(p) ptr_to_compat(p)
> > > > > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:#define to_user_ptr(p) ((unsigned long)(p))
> > > > Right, I'll figure out how to replace these two too.
> > > The powerpc to_user_ptr has a different meaning from the one I'm adding
> > > in this patch. I propose we just rename powerpc's to_user_ptr to
> > > __to_user_ptr and leave the rest as is.
> > I think that's not a good idea, and you should really check
> > this concept with the powerpc folk (added to to:s and cc:ed)
> >
> > If it were really added, then the function meaning is incorrect.
> >
> > This is taking a u64, casting that to (unsigned long/uint_ptr_t),
> > then converting that to a user pointer.
> >
> > Does that naming and use make sense on x86-32 or arm32?
> >
> fwiw Gustavo's version of to_user_ptr() is in use on arm32 and arm64..
> Not entirely sure what doesn't make sense about it
It's a name that seems like it should be a straightforward
cast of a kernel pointer to a __user pointer like:
static inline void __user *to_user_ptr(void *p)
{
return (void __user *)p;
}
As a static function in a single file, it's not
great, but OK, fine, it's static.
As a global function in kernel.h, it's misleading.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists