2009/5/4 Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 10:41:51AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Sunday 03 May 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:
>> >> No. To make it plain. To me any use of memdup_user() in USB code
>> >> is a bad idea. I don't want to have to think about a new primitive.
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 10:02 AM, David Brownell <david-b@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Unless it's incorrect to use that, I have to say that it
>> > makes more sense to use that utility than recreate it by
>> > open-coding...
>>
>> Yup, and I don't really see how anyone can avoid "thinking about a new
>> primitive" anyway. We have it in the kernel now and surely it will
>> appear under drivers/usb/ sooner or later...
>
> Well, how about passing the GPF flags down to memdup_user() so that we
> can use it in the usb subsystem, and Oliver's complaint will be resolve?
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
>
No, the debate is not here. As the comment in memdup_user() says:
/*
* Always use GFP_KERNEL, since copy_from_user() can sleep and
* cause pagefault, which makes it pointless to use GFP_NOFS
* or GFP_ATOMIC.
*/
So it is pointless to add a GFP flag to memdup_user().
I guess what Oliver insists is that the involvement of memdup_user() erases
the explicit call of kmalloc(). However, doesn't every function wrap
some details?
Regards,
Hong
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
