Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261194AbVDMUw4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:52:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261198AbVDMUw4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:52:56 -0400 Received: from mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net ([69.17.117.26]:38867 "EHLO mail24.sea5.speakeasy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261194AbVDMUwz (ORCPT ); Wed, 13 Apr 2005 16:52:55 -0400 Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:52:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Vadim Lobanov To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Further copy_from_user() discussion. Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1035 Lines: 25 Hi, Interested by the recent discussions concerning the copy_from_user() function, I browsed the 2.6.11.7 kernel source, and came up with a few questions. 1. Is there any particular reason why __copy_from_user_ll() is currently EXPORT_SYMBOL()ed for i386? At least none of the in-tree modules currently seem to use it, and __copy_from_user() seems like what most would want anyway. If __copy_from_user_ll() is unexported, it looks like we can eliminate the BUG_ON() statement within it. 2. Would it be possible to eliminate the might_sleep() call in copy_from_user()? It seems that, very soon after, the __copy_from_user() macro does another might_sleep(), with very few instructions in between. But there might be some trick here that I'm missing. Please enlighten. :-) -Vadim Lobanov - 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/