On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Joe Perches joe@perches.com wrote:
On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 16:33 -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Joe Perches joe@perches.com wrote:
On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 15:43 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote:
2016-03-17 Gustavo Padovan gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk:
2016-03-17 Joe Perches joe@perches.com:
On Thu, 2016-03-17 at 14:30 -0300, Gustavo Padovan wrote: > This function had copies in 3 different files. Unify them in > kernel.h. This is only used by gpu/drm.
I think this is a poor name for a generic function that would be in kernel.h.
Isn't there an include file in linux/drm that's appropriate for this. Maybe drmP.h
Maybe prefix this function name with drm_ too.
No, the next patch adds a user to drivers/staging (which will be moved to drivers/dma-buf) soon. Maybe move to a different header in include/linux/? not sure which one.
Also, there's this that might conflict:
arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:#define to_user_ptr(p) ptr_to_compat(p) arch/powerpc/kernel/signal_32.c:#define to_user_ptr(p) ((unsigned long)(p))
Right, I'll figure out how to replace these two too.
The powerpc to_user_ptr has a different meaning from the one I'm adding in this patch. I propose we just rename powerpc's to_user_ptr to __to_user_ptr and leave the rest as is.
I think that's not a good idea, and you should really check this concept with the powerpc folk (added to to:s and cc:ed)
If it were really added, then the function meaning is incorrect.
This is taking a u64, casting that to (unsigned long/uint_ptr_t), then converting that to a user pointer.
Does that naming and use make sense on x86-32 or arm32?
fwiw Gustavo's version of to_user_ptr() is in use on arm32 and arm64.. Not entirely sure what doesn't make sense about it
It's a name that seems like it should be a straightforward cast of a kernel pointer to a __user pointer like:
static inline void __user *to_user_ptr(void *p) { return (void __user *)p; }
ahh, ok. I guess I was used to using it in the context of ioctl structs.. in that context u64 -> (void __user *) made more sense.
Maybe uapi_to_ptr()? (ok, not super-creative.. maybe someone has a better idea)
BR, -R
As a static function in a single file, it's not great, but OK, fine, it's static.
As a global function in kernel.h, it's misleading.