On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 02:33:50PM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 18:19 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
> > 2016-03-17 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 16:50 -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > []
> > > > > It's a name that seems like it should be a straightforward
> > > > > cast of a kernel pointer to a __user pointer like:
> > > > >
> > > > > static inline void __user *to_user_ptr(void *p)
> > > > > {
> > > > > return (void __user *)p;
> > > > > }
> > > > ahh, ok. I guess I was used to using it in the context of ioctl
> > > > structs.. in that context u64 -> (void __user *) made more sense.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe uapi_to_ptr()? (ok, not super-creative.. maybe someone has a
> > > > better idea)
> > > Maybe u64_to_user_ptr?
> > That is a good name. If everyone agrees I can resend this patch
> > changing it to u64_to_user_ptr. Then should we still keep it on
> > kernel.h?
>
> I've no particular opinion about location,
> but maybe compat.h might be appropriate.
>
> Maybe add all variants:
>
> void __user *u32_to_user_ptr(u32 val)
> void __user *u64_to_user_ptr(u64 val)
> u32 user_ptr_to_u32(void __user *p)
> u64 user_ptr_to_u64(void __user *p)
>
> Maybe there's something about 32 bit userspace on
> 64 OS that should be done too.
Tbh I really don't think we should add 32bit variants and encourage the
mispractice of having 32bit user ptrs in ioctl structs and stuff. Anyway,
just my bikeshed on top ;-)
-Daniel
--
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
