Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Mar 2011 16:47:06 +0100 | From | Oleg Nesterov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] exec: introduce get_arg_ptr() helper |
| |
On 03/03, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote: > > > +static const char __user * > > +get_arg_ptr(const char __user * const __user *argv, int argc) > > +{ > > [argc, argv] is natural order to me than [argv, argc].
Yes... in fact, "argc" is misnamed here. It doesn't mean the number of arguments, it is the index in the array. Perhaps this should be [argv, nr].
> and "get_" prefix are usually used for reference count incrementing > function in linux. so, i _personally_ prefer to call "user_arg_ptr".
Agreed, the name is ugly. I'll rename and resend keeping your reviewed-by.
[2/4] > I _personally_ don't like "conditional". Its name is based on code logic. > It's unclear what mean "conditional". From data strucuture view, It is > "opaque userland pointer".
I agree with any naming, just suggest a better name ;)
[3/4] > > + struct conditional_ptr argv = { > > + .is_compat = true, .ptr.compat = __argv, > > + }; > > Please don't mind to compress a line. > > struct conditional_ptr argv = { > .is_compat = true, > .ptr.compat = __argv, > };
OK, will do.
Thanks for review!
Oleg.
| |