Re: [PATCH 04/14] x86: use more conventional access_ok() definition

Christoph Hellwig
2022-02-14T17:02:26Z

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 05:34:42PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> +#define __range_not_ok(addr, size, limit) (!__access_ok(addr, size))
> +#define __chk_range_not_ok(addr, size, limit) (!__access_ok((void __user *)addr, size))

Can we just kill these off insted of letting themm obsfucate the code?