On 03/03, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
> > +static const char __user *
> > +get_arg_ptr(const char __user * const __user *argv, int argc)
> > +{
>
> [argc, argv] is natural order to me than [argv, argc].
Yes... in fact, "argc" is misnamed here. It doesn't mean the number of
arguments, it is the index in the array. Perhaps this should be [argv, nr].
> and "get_" prefix are usually used for reference count incrementing
> function in linux. so, i _personally_ prefer to call "user_arg_ptr".
Agreed, the name is ugly. I'll rename and resend keeping your reviewed-by.
[2/4]
> I _personally_ don't like "conditional". Its name is based on code logic.
> It's unclear what mean "conditional". From data strucuture view, It is
> "opaque userland pointer".
I agree with any naming, just suggest a better name ;)
[3/4]
> > + struct conditional_ptr argv = {
> > + .is_compat = true, .ptr.compat = __argv,
> > + };
>
> Please don't mind to compress a line.
>
> struct conditional_ptr argv = {
> .is_compat = true,
> .ptr.compat = __argv,
> };
OK, will do.
Thanks for review!
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>