From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH -v5][RFC]: mutex: implement adaptive spinning Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 13:24:24 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: References: <1231279660.11687.121.camel@twins> <1231281801.11687.125.camel@twins> <1231283778.11687.136.camel@twins> <1231329783.11687.287.camel@twins> <1231347442.11687.344.camel@twins> <20090107210923.GV2002@parisc-linux.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Steven Rostedt , Peter Zijlstra , paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Gregory Haskins , Ingo Molnar , Andi Kleen , Chris Mason , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-fsdevel , linux-btrfs , Thomas Gleixner , Nick Piggin , Peter Morreale , Sven Dietrich To: Matthew Wilcox Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090107210923.GV2002@parisc-linux.org> List-ID: On Wed, 7 Jan 2009, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > I appreciate this is sample code, but using __get_user() on > non-userspace pointers messes up architectures which have separate > user/kernel spaces (eg the old 4G/4G split for x86-32). Do we have an > appropriate function for kernel space pointers? Is this a good reason > to add one? Yes, you're right. We could do the whole "oldfs = get_fs(); set_fs(KERNEL_DS); .. set_fs(oldfs);" crud, but it would probably be better to just add an architected accessor. Especially since it's going to generally just be a #define get_kernel_careful(val,p) __get_user(val,p) for most architectures. We've needed that before (and yes, we've simply mis-used __get_user() on x86 before rather than add it). Linus