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
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 patchA 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.