From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261457AbVCMU40 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:56:26 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261459AbVCMU40 (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:56:26 -0500 Received: from holomorphy.com ([66.93.40.71]:2225 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261457AbVCMU4W (ORCPT ); Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:56:22 -0500 Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 11:56:11 -0800 From: William Lee Irwin III To: Jesper Juhl Cc: linux-kernel , Andrew Morton , Ian Molton , Russell King , Geert Uytterhoeven , Matthew Wilcox , Tony Luck , Paul Mackerras , "David S. Miller" , Andi Kleen , Richard Henderson Subject: Re: [PATCH][0/10] verify_area cleanup Message-ID: <20050313195611.GE15648@holomorphy.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: The Domain of Holomorphy User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 03:47:07AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote: > Now that 2.6.11 is out the door it's time to try and submit this again. > The following patches convert all users of verify_area to access_ok and > the final patch then deprecates verify_area acros all archs with the > intention of removing it completely later. These patches get rid of 99+% > of all users, there's still one or two macros left using it and there are > still a few comments left refering to it that could be cleaned up - I'll > get to those, but what remains after these patches is extremely little. > The reason for doing this is that verify_area is just a wrapper for > access_ok anyway, so there's no good reason to keep it around - access_ok > also seems more readable anyway with saner return values. > Since these patches touch things all over the tree the CC list would be > enormous if I CC'd everyone involved on all patches, so I'll just CC this > initial mail to a few key people I think are relevant (I hope I got that > list right), and the actual patches I'll just send to linux-kernel and > Andrew (or directly to people who ask for that). The execution at first glance appears good. Out of curiosity, does this serve a larger purpose than eliminating a redundant API? -- wli