[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <428d07a6-bdc6-c12b-1b7e-e271bd841ff5@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2023 12:59:24 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: make __access_remote_vm() static
On 01.10.23 18:00, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> access_remote_vm() passes through parameters to __access_remote_vm()
> directly, so remove the __access_remote_vm() function from mm.h aand use
> access_remote_vm() in the one caller that needs it (ptrace_access_vm()).
>
Wondering why we even still have __access_remote_vm() in the first
place, if it really should just be access_remote_vm() directly.
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists