Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> x86/powerpc has it's implementation of copy_mc_to_user but not use #define
> to declare.
>
> This may cause problems, for example, if other architectures open
> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_COPY_MC, but want to use copy_mc_to_user() outside the
> architecture, the code add to include/linux/uaddess.h is as follows:
>
> #ifndef copy_mc_to_user
> static inline unsigned long __must_check
> copy_mc_to_user(void *dst, const void *src, size_t cnt)
> {
> ...
> }
> #endif
The above doesn't exist yet, you add it in patch 3, which is a little
confusing for a reader of this commit in isolation.
I think you could safely move that into this patch, and then this patch
would be ~= "Add generic fallback version of copy_mc_to_user()".
It's probably not worth doing a whole new version of the series just for
that, but if you need to do a new version for some other reason I think
it would be cleaner to introduce the fallback in this commit.
> Then this definition will conflict with the implementation of x86/powerpc
> and cause compilation errors as follow:
>
> Fixes: ec6347bb4339 ("x86, powerpc: Rename memcpy_mcsafe() to copy_mc_to_{user, kernel}()")
> Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/uaccess.h | 1 +
Acked-by: Michael Ellerman <mpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (powerpc)
cheers
