Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Rene Herman
Date: Friday, January 5, 2007 - 8:46 pm

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:


In your opinion, is the attached (versus 2.6.20-rc3) better? This uses 
probe_kernel_address() for all accesses. Or rather, an expanded version 
thereof. The set_fs() and pagefault_{disable,enable} calls are only done 
once in probe_roms().

Accessing the length byte at rom[2] with __get_user() is overkill after 
just checking the signature at 0 and 1 but direcly accessing only that 
makes for inconsistent code IMO. It's only a .fixup entry...

I can't say I'm all that sure that that pagefault_disable() call is 
still applicable now that it got expanded into the probe_roms() stage?

Rene.
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup, Rene Herman, (Tue Jan 2, 1:01 pm)
Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Fri Jan 5, 4:22 pm)
Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup, Rene Herman, (Fri Jan 5, 8:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Sun Jan 7, 1:59 am)
Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup, Rene Herman, (Sun Jan 7, 2:02 am)
Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Sun Jan 7, 3:20 am)
Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup, Rene Herman, (Sun Jan 7, 3:47 am)
Re: [PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Sun Jan 7, 11:07 am)
[PATCH] romsignature/checksum cleanup, Rene Herman, (Sun Jan 7, 7:48 pm)