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? _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
