From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750946AbWJ1P6N (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:58:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750947AbWJ1P6N (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:58:13 -0400 Received: from nic.NetDirect.CA ([216.16.235.2]:34444 "EHLO rubicon.netdirect.ca") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750946AbWJ1P6N (ORCPT ); Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:58:13 -0400 X-Originating-Ip: 72.57.81.197 Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:56:24 -0400 (EDT) From: "Robert P. J. Day" X-X-Sender: rpjday@localhost.localdomain To: Linux Kernel Mailing List Subject: why "probe_kernel_address()", not "probe_user_address()"? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-16.8, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, BAYES_00 -15.00) X-Net-Direct-Inc-MailScanner-From: rpjday@mindspring.com Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org it seems odd that the purpose of the "probe_kernel_address()" macro is, in fact, to probe a *user* address (from linux/uaccess.h): #define probe_kernel_address(addr, retval) \ ({ \ long ret; \ \ inc_preempt_count(); \ ret = __get_user(retval, addr); \ dec_preempt_count(); \ ret; \ }) given that that routine is referenced only 5 places in the entire source tree, wouldn't it be more meaningful to use a more appropriate name? pedantically yours, rday