Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:29:06 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: why "probe_kernel_address()", not "probe_user_address()"? |
| |
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 11:56:24 -0400 (EDT) "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > it seems odd that the purpose of the "probe_kernel_address()" macro > is, in fact, to probe a *user* address (from linux/uaccess.h): > > #define probe_kernel_address(addr, retval) \ > ({ \ > long ret; \ > \ > inc_preempt_count(); \ > ret = __get_user(retval, addr); \ > dec_preempt_count(); \ > ret; \ > }) > > given that that routine is referenced only 5 places in the entire > source tree, wouldn't it be more meaningful to use a more appropriate > name? >
You'll notice that all callers are indeed probing kernel addresses. The function _could_ be used for user addresses and could perhaps be called probe_address().
One of the reasons this wrapper exists is to communicate that the __get_user() it is in fact not being used to access user memory. - 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/
| |