On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 11:14 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
>
> So we'd need new user copy functions for just those cases
No. We'd open-code them. They'd look at "oh, I'm supposed to use a
kernel pointer" and just use those.
IOW, basically IN THE CODE that cares (and the whole argument is that
this code is one or two special cases) you do
/* This has not been converted to the new world order */
if (get_fs() == KERNEL_DS) memcpy(..) else copy_from_user();
You're overdesigning things. You're making them more complex than they
need to be.
Basically, I do *NOT* want to pollute the VFS layer with new
interfaces that shouldn't exist in the long run. I'd much rather make
the eventual goal be to get rid of 'read/write' entirely in favour of
the 'iter' things, but what I absolutely do *NOT* want to see is to
make a _third_ interface for reading and writing. Quite the reverse.
We should strive to make it a _single_ interface, not add a new one.
And I'd rather have a couple of ugly code details in odd places (that
we can hopefully fix up later) than have new VFS infrastructure that
will then hang around forever more.
Linus
