From: Jesper Juhl <email@example.com>
To: Andrew Morton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Jesper Juhl <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
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.email@example.com> (raw)
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Jesper Juhl <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Jesper Juhl <email@example.com> 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
> 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.
prev parent 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]
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 \
* 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).