From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754472AbYKQSRM (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:17:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751589AbYKQSQ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:16:57 -0500 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:41926 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751468AbYKQSQ5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:16:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 10:16:34 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Jens Axboe cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Ingo Molnar , Tejun Heo , Arjan van de Ven , Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix kunmap() argument in sg_miter_stop In-Reply-To: <20081117180738.GW26778@kernel.dk> Message-ID: References: <20081117085046.GE28786@elte.hu> <20081117085807.GF26778@kernel.dk> <20081117093425.GG26778@kernel.dk> <20081117094147.GJ28786@elte.hu> <20081117094551.GI26778@kernel.dk> <20081117111350.GJ26778@kernel.dk> <4921A4F3.1030309@goop.org> <20081117171005.GA25729@elte.hu> <4921A6BE.7000206@goop.org> <20081117180738.GW26778@kernel.dk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 17 Nov 2008, Jens Axboe wrote: > > Any opinions on the kunmap/kunmap_atomic pointer checking? It's a bit > ugly that we have to enforce a void * rule for kunmap_atomic(), I don't think that's a "bit ugly". I think it's unacceptable. Making sure we pass in "struct page" to kunmap() sounds good, but the kunmap_atomic() part just sounds insane. Linus