Thread (13 messages) 13 messages, 3 authors, 2020-09-01

Re: [RESEND][PATCH 0/7] Avoid overflow at boundary_size

From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Date: 2020-09-01 09:11:14
Also in: linux-alpha, linux-s390, lkml, sparclinux

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 12:54:01AM -0700, Nicolin Chen wrote:
Hi Christoph,

On Tue, Sep 01, 2020 at 09:36:23AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted
I really don't like all the open coded smarts in the various drivers.
What do you think about a helper like the one in the untested patch
A helper function will be actually better. I was thinking of
one yet not very sure about the naming and where to put it.
quoted
below (on top of your series).  Also please include the original
segment boundary patch with the next resend so that the series has
the full context.
I will use your change instead and resend with the ULONG_MAX
change. But in that case, should I make separate changes for
different files like this series, or just one single change
like yours?

Asking this as I was expecting that those changes would get
applied by different maintainers. But now it feels like you
will merge it to your tree at once?
I guess one patch is fine.  I can queue it up in the dma-mapping
tree as a prep patch for the default boundary change.
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help