On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 15:43 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote: >> 2016-03-17 Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > 2016-03-17 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> > > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 14:30 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote: >> > > > >> > > > This function had copies in 3 different files. Unify them in >> > > > kernel.h. >> > > This is only used by gpu/drm. >> > > >> > > I think this is a poor name for a generic function >> > > that would be in kernel.h. >> > > >> > > Isn't there an include file in linux/drm that's >> > > appropriate for this. Maybe drmP.h >> > > >> > > Maybe prefix this function name with drm_ too. >> > No, the next patch adds a user to drivers/staging (which will be moved >> > to drivers/dma-buf) soon. Maybe move to a different header in >> > include/linux/? not sure which one. >> > >> > > >> > > Also, there's this that might conflict: >> > > >> > > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:#define to_user_ptr(p) ptr_to_compat(p) >> > > arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:#define to_user_ptr(p) ((unsigned long)(p)) >> > Right, I'll figure out how to replace these two too. >> The powerpc to_user_ptr has a different meaning from the one I'm adding >> in this patch. I propose we just rename powerpc's to_user_ptr to >> __to_user_ptr and leave the rest as is. > > I think that's not a good idea, and you should really check > this concept with the powerpc folk (added to to:s and cc:ed) > > If it were really added, then the function meaning is incorrect. > > This is taking a u64, casting that to (unsigned long/uint_ptr_t), > then converting that to a user pointer. > > Does that naming and use make sense on x86-32 or arm32? > fwiw Gustavo's version of to_user_ptr() is in use on arm32 and arm64.. Not entirely sure what doesn't make sense about it BR, -R _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
