From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>,
lmcilroy@redhat.com, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] vfs: relax count check in rw_verify_area
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:30:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101014163047.d909ad5c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201010132246.21744.edward.shishkin@gmail.com>
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 22:46:21 +0200
Edward Shishkin <edward.shishkin@gmail.com> wrote:
> Increase count limit in rw_verify_area().
>
OK, now this is a truly awful attempt to describe a patch.
afaict what the patch does is to change rw_verify_area() so that the
kernel now permits single reads and writes of up to 2^63 bytes on
64-bit systems. Whereas it was previously limited to 2^31. And the
patch also fixes up a couple of callsites which were assuming that
rw_verify_area() had that particular behaviour.
But that's just my guess, based on a quick read of the implementation.
I didn't check how far this change penetrates. Does it affect all
filesystems, for example? If so were they all reviewed (or tested!)
for correctness?
And why was this patch written? What motivated you? What are the
user-visible effects? Do manpages need updating?
I don't want to have to sit here scratching my head over the
implications and intent of *your* patch. As at least a starting
point, you should be telling us, please.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-14 23:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-13 20:46 [patch 2/2] vfs: relax count check in rw_verify_area Edward Shishkin
2010-10-14 23:30 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-10-26 14:44 ` Edward Shishkin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20101014163047.d909ad5c.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=edward.shishkin@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lmcilroy@redhat.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).