> -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Gunthorpe [mailto:jgunthorpe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 11:53 AM > To: Dalessandro, Dennis <dennis.dalessandro@xxxxxxxxx> > Cc: dledford@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Hariharan, Easwar > <easwar.hariharan@xxxxxxxxx>; Luick, Dean <dean.luick@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] IB/hfi1: Restore EPROM read ability > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 07:49:29AM -0700, Dennis Dalessandro wrote: > > + for (offset = 0; offset < len; offset += EP_PAGE_SIZE) { > > + read_page(dd, start + offset, buffer); > > + if (copy_to_user((void __user *)(addr + offset), > > If it is not being used by userpsace then do not call copy_to_user... The first patch in the series is a straight (partial) restore of the old code. This is what you are commenting on. The second patch does a "fixup" of the restored code and removes this call. Should we squash patches 1 and 2 so that this never shows up? It is a question of how much "show your work" is desired. Dean -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rdma" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
