From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752666AbdGGWum (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2017 18:50:42 -0400 Received: from ozlabs.org ([103.22.144.67]:38365 "EHLO ozlabs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751059AbdGGWuk (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 Jul 2017 18:50:40 -0400 From: Michael Ellerman To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Al Viro , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , "linuxppc-dev\@lists.ozlabs.org" Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git part 1 In-Reply-To: References: <20170705071423.GY10672@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> <87eftsv2hj.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21 (https://notmuchmail.org) Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 08:50:27 +1000 Message-ID: <8760f3vp3g.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds writes: > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Linus Torvalds > wrote: >> >> The copy_flock_fields() macro has the arguments in order , >> but all the users seem to do it the other way around. > > Looking more at it, I think I'd also like copy_flock_fields() to take > pointer arguments, to match all the code around it (both > copy_to/from_user and the memset calls. > > The actual order of arguments I suspect Michael's patch did better - > make the copy_flock_fields() just match the order of memcpy() and > copy_to/from_user(), both of which have order. > > So I think my preferred patch would be something like this, even if it > is bigger than either. > > Comments? Michael, does this work for your case? Yeah that works, as committed in your tree. Sorry for the slow reply, our time zones don't line up all that well :) cheers