Re: [PATCH 18/18] vfs: make no_llseek the default

[Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>]

On Thursday 08 July 2010, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> I see. [PATCH 16/18] ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/7/258 ) contains a line
> 
>    security/tomoyo/common.c                      |    1 +
> 
> but no change in the patch. Patch was too large?

Yes, the total patch is almost 200kb, which I considered too large.
I explained this in the changelog.

In retrospect, I probably should have sent it all anyway, because the
changelog is already very long and a few other people did not realize
this either because they did only read the patch but not the changelog.

As I mentioned to Boaz Harrosh, the full patch is available on
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/arnd/bkl.git;a=patch;h=dc731e01d2a08eb66ae08c226c97aa0cb8cf7b7f
and I'll send it out completely if I send out the series again.

I first want to make sure we have consensus on the semantic patch though.
In particular, I want to be sure everyone agrees on the following questions:

- should we kill default_llseek in favour of a more generic generic_file_llseek
  that also covers special files?
- if not, should default_llseek get renamed to something else?
- should I bother adding .llseek=no_llseek if we make that the default in the
  next step anyway?
- should I drop all the automatically generated comments?
- Do I need to split this patch up into per-maintainer chunks and send them
  through the individual trees, or do we just apply the semantic patch treewide
  at the end of the merge window?

	Arnd