Re: [git pull] vfs.git part 1

From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linuxppc-dev\@lists.ozlabs.org" <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [git pull] vfs.git part 1
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2017 08:50:27 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8760f3vp3g.fsf@concordia.ellerman.id.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzHBR9M+UN2CMAQ0np275iyWyAY0uKK8LFo33g0e7Z-VQ@mail.gmail.com>

Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 8:59 AM, Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> The copy_flock_fields() macro has the arguments in order <from, to>,
>> but all the users seem to do it the other way around.
>
> Looking more at it, I think I'd also like copy_flock_fields() to take
> pointer arguments, to match all the code around it (both
> copy_to/from_user and the memset calls.
>
> The actual order of arguments I suspect Michael's patch did better -
> make the copy_flock_fields() just match the order of memcpy() and
> copy_to/from_user(), both of which have <dest,src> order.
>
> So I think my preferred patch would be something like this, even if it
> is bigger than either.
>
> Comments? Michael, does this work for your case?

Yeah that works, as committed in your tree. Sorry for the slow reply,
our time zones don't line up all that well :)

cheers