[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190815192827.GE15186@magnolia>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2019 12:28:27 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux FS-devel Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>,
Allison Collins <allison.henderson@...cle.com>,
Nick Bowler <nbowler@...conx.ca>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/18] xfs: compat_ioctl: use compat_ptr()
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 09:20:32PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 4:04 PM Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 10:15:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/xfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/xfs-ioctl-table
> > >
> > > Lots to like in that handful of patches. :)
> > >
> > > It can easily go before or after Arnd's patch, and the merge
> > > conflict either way would be minor, so I'm not really fussed either
> > > way this gets sorted out...
> >
> > The other thing we could do is to just pick the two important ones:
> >
> > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/xfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/xfs-ioctl-table-5.3
> >
> > and throw that into Arnds series, or even 5.3, and then defer the
> > table thing until later.
>
> If we can have your "xfs: fall back to native ioctls for unhandled compat
> ones" in 5.3, that would be ideal from my side, then I can just drop the
> corresponding patch from my series and have the rest merged for 5.4.
>
> The compat_ptr addition is independent of my series, I just added it
> because I noticed it was missing, so we can merged that through
> the xfs tree along with your other changes, either for 5.3 or 5.4.
Er... do the two patches in the -5.3 branch actually fix something
that's broken? I sense s390 is missing a pointer sanitization check or
something...?
--D
> Arnd
Powered by blists - more mailing lists