From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1753461AbdA3R0y (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:26:54 -0500
Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:63429 "EHLO mga04.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752844AbdA3R0w (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:26:52 -0500
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,312,1477983600"; 
   d="scan'208";a="928242006"
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 09:23:04 -0800
From: Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>, "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86/fpu: Remove 'kbuf' parameter from the
 copy_xstate_to_user() APIs
Message-ID: <20170130172303.GB27534@test-lenovo>
References: <1485426179-13681-1-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org>
 <1485426179-13681-5-git-send-email-mingo@kernel.org>
 <20170127101656.r6djweg3snx4n7k2@pd.tnic>
 <20170130095728.GA26142@gmail.com>
 <20170130154521.rtmqgsqkchdvxucv@pd.tnic>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170130154521.rtmqgsqkchdvxucv@pd.tnic>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 04:45:21PM +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 10:57:28AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Would anyone object to using u32 in these prototypes?
> 
> Well, would there be any disadvantage to forcing them to u32?
> Potentially by something else wanting to use those interfaces besides
> the regset thing and that something else doesn't like u32s?
> 
> Otherwise, I don't see a problem.
> 
> I mean, if 4G are not enough for xstate dimensions then we have a whole
> different problem.

This function pair was intended to be similar to user_regset_copyout(), 
user_regset_copyin() used for the standard-format XSAVE area copying.
I totally agree it is complex and should be simplified.  Why don't we
do both places? 

Yu-cheng