From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] vfs: make no_llseek the default
Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:18:28 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-19-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: jmorris@namei.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org,
       John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
       Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
       Julia Lawall <julia@diku.dk>
References: <1278538820-1392-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201007081408.06415.arnd@arndb.de> <201007082157.IFC26590.JMQSHOFFFOVLtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
In-Reply-To: <201007082157.IFC26590.JMQSHOFFFOVLtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201007081518.28738.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1719
Lines: 37

On Thursday 08 July 2010, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> I see. [PATCH 16/18] ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/7/258 ) contains a line
> 
>    security/tomoyo/common.c                      |    1 +
> 
> but no change in the patch. Patch was too large?

Yes, the total patch is almost 200kb, which I considered too large.
I explained this in the changelog.

In retrospect, I probably should have sent it all anyway, because the
changelog is already very long and a few other people did not realize
this either because they did only read the patch but not the changelog.

As I mentioned to Boaz Harrosh, the full patch is available on
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/arnd/bkl.git;a=patch;h=dc731e01d2a08eb66ae08c226c97aa0cb8cf7b7f
and I'll send it out completely if I send out the series again.

I first want to make sure we have consensus on the semantic patch though.
In particular, I want to be sure everyone agrees on the following questions:

- should we kill default_llseek in favour of a more generic generic_file_llseek
  that also covers special files?
- if not, should default_llseek get renamed to something else?
- should I bother adding .llseek=no_llseek if we make that the default in the
  next step anyway?
- should I drop all the automatically generated comments?
- Do I need to split this patch up into per-maintainer chunks and send them
  through the individual trees, or do we just apply the semantic patch treewide
  at the end of the merge window?

	Arnd
--
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/