archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jesper Juhl <>
To: Andrew Morton <>
Cc: Jesper Juhl <>,
Subject: Re: [PATCH][0/4] let's kill verify_area
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2005 02:20:58 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501090210520.4014@dragon.hygekrogen.localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:

> Jesper Juhl <> wrote:
> >
> > 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). 
> The way to do this is to fix up the callers first, in just ten or so
> patches.  Then mark the function deprecated when most of the conversion is
> done.
> If we deprecate the functions first then 10000 people send small fixes via
> various snaky routes and it's really hard to coordinate the overlapping
> fixes.  The s/MODULE_PARM/module_param/ stuff did that, because we made it
> warn first, then I held the big sweep patch off for 2.6.11.

Ok, that makes sense.

Here's my plan then:

I'll get to work on converting roughly one tenth og the verify_area 
occourances and then post a patch for that for review. If it turns out to 
be OK I'll get to work on the rest and do as many as I can and at that 
point (assuming those patches are also OK) I'll re-submit a patch to 
deprecate the function so the remaining instances can get cleaned up and 
the function removed.
This will probably take me a few days to do since A) it seems I didn't 
even get my initial conversions correct so I'll need to be more careful, 
and B) I have limited time.  But, I'll start doing the initial 1/10'th 
patch now and hopefully post that to lkml within a few days.

Thank you for your feedback.

Jesper Juhl

      reply	other threads:[~2005-01-09  1:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-01-07  1:18 [PATCH][0/4] let's kill verify_area Jesper Juhl
2005-01-07  1:26 ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-07  1:49   ` Jesper Juhl
2005-01-07  1:56     ` Andrew Morton
2005-01-09  1:20       ` Jesper Juhl [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Pine.LNX.4.61.0501090210520.4014@dragon.hygekrogen.localhost \ \ \ \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).