[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181013040727.GM32577@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2018 05:07:27 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [resend PATCH] MAINTAINERS: Clarify UIO vs UACCESS maintainer
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 11:50:09AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> The UIO file mask in MAINTAINERS was incorrectly directing UACCESS
> (include/linux/uio.h) patches to Greg.
>
> Tag Al as the UACCESS maintainer as Ingo and others have explicitly
> required his ack before taking architecture patches that touch
> lib/iov_iter.c.
>
> Cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> Reported-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Acked-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> ---
> I got a bounce last time I tried to send this, hopefully the situation
> has improved now.
>
> Al, let me know if you want this entry. Alternatively we can just do the
> UIO file mask fixup by itself.
Sure, no problem, except that UACCESS refers to different things.
I'd probably call it UIOVEC, if we want a name that does refer to the
same somewhere (*BSD). If anything, it's generalization of copyin/copyout
for non-userland destinations/sources; uaccess answer to (subset of) the
same problem would be set_fs()/get_fs() and the fewer we have left of that,
the better...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists