On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 14:58:05 +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:58:14PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:42:08 +0200, > > Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:08:46PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote: > > > > On Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:01:46 +0200, > > > > Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > ... > > > > > While I see the benefit, I feel this is very confusing. If we use the > > > > API for a generic use, it should be renamed at first. > > > > Any suggestion for the name? > > > > It's a universal pointer... uniptr_t? > > Or a generic pointer, genptr_t? > > > > I'm not good at naming, and I'm open for it. > > It seems it's already spread enough with this name, I would rather stick with > it for now (besides net it's used in crypto, nvme, and security). > > The (new) callback though makes a lot of sense on its own. OK, fair enough. > What do you think? Yes, we can go with it. Basically we need to add a new "copy" callback to take sockptr_t and use it instead of the old "copy_kernel" and "copy_user" callbacks. It's used only in sound/core/pcm_lib.c, so it shouldn't be too difficult, I suppose. Then replace the defined callbacks in each driver, and finally deprecate old callbacks. thanks, Takashi
