[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wh6d59KAG_6t+NrCLBz-i0OUSJrqurric=m0ZG850Ddkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 07:02:55 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
stable <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Erwin Tsaur <erwin.tsaur@...el.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] Replace and improve "mcsafe" with copy_safe()
On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:41 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
>
> With the above realizations the name "mcsafe" is no longer accurate and
> copy_safe() is proposed as its replacement. x86 grows a copy_safe_fast()
> implementation as a default implementation that is independent of
> detecting the presence of x86-MCA.
How is this then different from "probe_kernel_read()" and
"probe_kernel_write()"? Other than the obvious "it does it for both
reads and writes"?
IOW, wouldn't it be sensible to try to match the naming and try to
find some unified model for all these things?
"probe_kernel_copy()"?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists