From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 132ECC433E6 for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E587A2083B for ; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 09:11:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726426AbgIAJLN (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2020 05:11:13 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:52607 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726064AbgIAJLK (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2020 05:11:10 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 5724168B05; Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:11:05 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 11:11:05 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Nicolin Chen Cc: Christoph Hellwig , mpe@ellerman.id.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org, rth@twiddle.net, ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru, mattst88@gmail.com, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, schnelle@linux.ibm.com, gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, davem@davemloft.net, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com, deller@gmx.de, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RESEND][PATCH 0/7] Avoid overflow at boundary_size Message-ID: <20200901091105.GA4959@lst.de> References: <20200831203811.8494-1-nicoleotsuka@gmail.com> <20200901073623.GA30418@lst.de> <20200901075401.GA5667@Asurada-Nvidia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200901075401.GA5667@Asurada-Nvidia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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: > > 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 patch > > A helper function will be actually better. I was thinking of > one yet not very sure about the naming and where to put it. > > > 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.