Thread (61 messages) 61 messages, 12 authors, 2022-02-16

Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Date: 2022-02-14 17:02:24
Also in: linux-alpha, linux-api, linux-arch, linux-arm-kernel, linux-m68k, linux-mips, linux-mm, linux-riscv, linux-s390, linux-sh, linuxppc-dev, lkml, sparclinux

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:34:42PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
+#define __range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)	(!__access_ok(addr, size))
+#define __chk_range_not_ok(addr, size, limit)	(!__access_ok((void __user *)addr, size))
Can we just kill these off insted of letting themm obsfucate the code?

_______________________________________________
linux-um mailing list
linux-um@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-um
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help