On Fri, 1 May 2020 12:41:05 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > Currently copy_string_kernel is just a wrapper around copy_strings that > simplifies the calling conventions and uses set_fs to allow passing a > kernel pointer. But due to the fact the we only need to handle a single > kernel argument pointer, the logic can be sigificantly simplified while > getting rid of the set_fs. > I don't get why this is better? copy_strings() is still there and won't be going away - what's wrong with simply reusing it in this fashion? I guess set_fs() is a bit hacky, but there's the benefit of not having to maintain two largely similar bits of code?
