On Fri, 1 May 2020 22:30:48 +0100 Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 02:19:03PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > 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? > > Killing set_fs() would be a very good thing... Why is that? And is there a project afoot to do this?
