On 12/21/21 9:22 AM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 8:50 AM Stefan Roesch <shr@xxxxxx> wrote: >> >> This splits off do_getxattr function from the getxattr >> function. This will allow io_uring to call it from its >> io worker. > > Hmm. > > My reaction to this one is > > "Why isn't do_getxattr() using 'struct xattr_ctx' for its context?" > > As far as I can tell, that's *exactly* what it wants, and it would be > logical to match up with the setxattr side. > > Yeah, yeah, setxattr has a 'const void __user *value' while getxattr > obviously has just a 'void __user *value'. But if the cost of having a > unified interface is that you lose the 'const' part for the setxattr, > I think that's still a good thing. > > Yes? No? Comments? Linus, if we remove the constness, then we either need to cast away the constness (the system call is defined as const) or change the definition of the system call. > > Linus >
