On Mon, Dec 02, 2019 at 02:07:18PM -0500, Dennis Zhou wrote: > On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 01:00:37AM +0100, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 06:11:59PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: > > > > > > > 1) it would strip any address space, not just __percpu, so: > > > > it would need to be combined with __verify_pcpu_ptr() or, > > > > * a better name should be used, > > > > > > typeof_cast_kernel() to express the fact that it creates a kernel pointer > > > and ignored the attributes?? > > > > typeof_strip_address_space() would, I think, express this better. > > It's not obvious at all to me that 'kernel' in 'typeof_cast_kernel()' > > relates to the (default) kernel address space. > > Maybe it's just me. I don't know. > > > > I think typeof_cast_kernel() or typeof_force_kernel() are reasonable > names. I kind of like the idea of cast/force over strip because we're > really still moving address spaces even if it is moving it back. Well, 'typeof_cast_kernel()' somehow conveys the idea but sounds a bit weird as the macro doesn't contain a cast (expression). > Thanks for debugging this. I'm still inclined to have a macro for either > cast/force. I do agree it could be misused, but it's no different doing > it in a macro than by just adding __force __kernel. I'm glad to help making the kernel type-clean (with the goal of catching more bugs earlier) but I admit that I absolutely detest these layers of ugly macros. I'm working on a nicer implementation but it's not yet ready. Best regards, -- Luc
