Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932642AbaAaSpx (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:45:53 -0500 Received: from mail-ve0-f178.google.com ([209.85.128.178]:33103 "EHLO mail-ve0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932236AbaAaSpw (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Jan 2014 13:45:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <52EBE62E.70102@linux.intel.com> References: <20140131025453.B594B660CA3@gitolite.kernel.org> <20140131175009.GA27231@redhat.com> <52EBE62E.70102@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:45:51 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: qePET27NBqnfk2iW85UmEk425vM Message-ID: Subject: Re: x86, x32: Correct invalid use of user timespec in the kernel From: Linus Torvalds To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Dave Jones , Linux Kernel Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:06 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > My feeling is that {get,put}_compat_timespec() should at the very least > have leading underscores to flag it as a low-level function, but better > suggestions would be appreciated. Why not just remove it entirely, and change all users to compat_[get|set]_timespec (same for timeval etc, of course). After all, compat_*_time*() does fall back cleanly for non-x32 cases. And sure, maybe that particular code is never *needed* for x32 support, but the overhead is generally zero (since in most cases X32 isn't even configured), or very low anyway. So the upside of having two subtly incompatible interfaces is very dubious, no? Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/