Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 1 May 2020 14:19:03 -0700
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc:     Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] exec: open code copy_string_kernel
Message-Id: <20200501141903.5f7b1f81fdd38ae372d91f0e@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20200501104105.2621149-3-hch@lst.de>
References: <20200501104105.2621149-1-hch@lst.de>
        <20200501104105.2621149-3-hch@lst.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri,  1 May 2020 12:41:05 +0200 Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> wrote:

> Currently copy_string_kernel is just a wrapper around copy_strings that
> simplifies the calling conventions and uses set_fs to allow passing a
> kernel pointer.  But due to the fact the we only need to handle a single
> kernel argument pointer, the logic can be sigificantly simplified while
> getting rid of the set_fs.
> 

I don't get why this is better?  copy_strings() is still there and
won't be going away - what's wrong with simply reusing it in this
fashion?

I guess set_fs() is a bit hacky, but there's the benefit of not having
to maintain two largely similar bits of code?