From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261276AbVAGBvU (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:51:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261269AbVAGBvJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:51:09 -0500 Received: from mail.dif.dk ([193.138.115.101]:12737 "EHLO mail.dif.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261299AbVAGBiV (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Jan 2005 20:38:21 -0500 Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 02:49:46 +0100 (CET) From: Jesper Juhl To: Andrew Morton Cc: Jesper Juhl , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH][0/4] let's kill verify_area In-Reply-To: <20050106172624.7cc2a142.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20050106172624.7cc2a142.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Andrew Morton wrote: > Jesper Juhl wrote: > > > > verify_area() if just a wrapper for access_ok() (or similar function or > > dummy function) for all arch's. > > This sounds more like "let's kill Andrew". I count 489 instances in the > tree. Please don't expect this activity to take top priority ;) > Heh, right, there's an aspect I hadn't really considered. I'm not expecting top priority, not at all. This is nowhere near being anything important, just something that should happen eventually - so I thought, why not just deprecate it now and let it be cleaned up over time (and I'll do my share, don't worry :) Accept the patch if you think it makes sense, drop it if you think it does not (or should wait). -- Jesper Juhl