Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sun, 30 Oct 2022 05:01:39 +0000
From:   Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>, willy@infradead.org,
        dchinner@redhat.com, Steve French <smfrench@gmail.com>,
        Shyam Prasad N <nspmangalore@gmail.com>,
        Rohith Surabattula <rohiths.msft@gmail.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/12] use less confusing names for iov_iter direction
 initializers
Message-ID: <Y14FM9svxLoaOOuS@ZenIV>
References: <Y1btOP0tyPtcYajo@ZenIV>
 <20221028023352.3532080-1-viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
 <20221028023352.3532080-12-viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
 <CAHk-=wibPKfv7mpReMj5PjKBQi4OsAQ8uwW_7=6VCVnaM-p_Dw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1wOR7YmqK8iBYa8@ZenIV>
 <CAHk-=wi_iDAugqFZxTiscsRCNbtARMFiugWtBKO=NqgM-vCVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y1wt7uzL7vkBQ6Vm@ZenIV>
 <CAHk-=wj4ndvhOFFsnNXRmwetwL9ZxE2QzcrLFTeJ7Yfh+pJ7Mw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wj4ndvhOFFsnNXRmwetwL9ZxE2QzcrLFTeJ7Yfh+pJ7Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: Al Viro <viro@ftp.linux.org.uk>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 01:34:05PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2022 at 12:30 PM Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Went through the callers, replaced each with the right ITER_... (there's
> > not that many of them and they are fairly easy to review), then went
> > through mismatches and split their fixups into the beginning of the
> > series (READ -> ITER_SOURCE becoming READ -> WRITE -> ITER_SOURCE, that
> > is).
> 
> Oh, ok. So if you've actually reviewed each and every one of them,
> then I'm ok with the "abort".
> 
> I still want it to be a WARN_ON_ONCE(), because of any future addition
> that gets things wrong.

Sure, np; branch updated and pushed out - the only difference is that
11/12 adds WARN_ON_ONCE instead of WARN_ON, so no point reposting, IMO...