Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > [ Explicitly added architecture lists and developers to the cc to make > this more visible ] > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 12:38 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Andrew and I decided to drop the patches implementing your suggested >> rename of the probe_kernel_* and probe_user_* helpers from -mm as there >> were way to many conflicts. After -rc1 might be a good time for this as >> all the conflicts are resolved now. > > So I've merged this renaming now, together with my changes to make > 'get_kernel_nofault()' look and act a lot more like 'get_user()'. > > It just felt wrong (and potentially dangerous) to me to have a > 'get_kernel_nofault()' naming that implied semantics that we're all > familiar with from 'get_user()', but acting very differently. > > But part of the fixups I made for the type checking are for > architectures where I didn't even compile-test the end result. I > looked at every case individually, and the patch looks sane, but I > could have screwed something up. > > Basically, 'get_kernel_nofault()' doesn't do the same automagic type > munging from the pointer to the target that 'get_user()' does, but at > least now it checks that the types are superficially compatible. > There should be build failures if they aren't, but I hopefully fixed > everything up properly for all architectures. > > This email is partly to ask people to double-check, but partly just as > a heads-up so that _if_ I screwed something up, you'll have the > background and it won't take you by surprise. The powerpc changes look right, compile cleanly and seem to work correctly. cheers
