On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 08:11:32AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:30:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > Sorry, I meant csum_and_copy_from_nocheck, just as in this patch.
> > >
> > > Merging your branch into the net-next tree thus will conflict in
> > > the nios2 and
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:30:40PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > Sorry, I meant csum_and_copy_from_nocheck, just as in this patch.
> >
> > Merging your branch into the net-next tree thus will conflict in
> > the nios2 and asm-geneeric/checksum.h as well as lib/checksum.c.
>
> Noted, but that
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:23:37PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:19:18PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > net-next has a patch from me killing off csum_and_copy_from_user
> > > already:
> > >
> > >
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 01:19:18PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > net-next has a patch from me killing off csum_and_copy_from_user
> > already:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/netdev/net-next.git/commit/?id=f1bfd71c8662f20d53e71ef4e18bfb0e5677c27f
>
> Nothing in that patch of
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 07:41:17AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 02:25:30AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > From: Al Viro
> >
> > quite a few architectures have the same csum_partial_copy_nocheck() -
> > simply memcpy() the data and then return the csum of the copy.
> >
>
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 02:25:30AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> From: Al Viro
>
> quite a few architectures have the same csum_partial_copy_nocheck() -
> simply memcpy() the data and then return the csum of the copy.
>
> hexagon, parisc, ia64, s390, um: explicitly spelled out that way.
>
> arc,
From: Al Viro
quite a few architectures have the same csum_partial_copy_nocheck() -
simply memcpy() the data and then return the csum of the copy.
hexagon, parisc, ia64, s390, um: explicitly spelled out that way.
arc, arm64, csky, h8300, m68k/nommu, microblaze, mips/GENERIC_CSUM, nds32,
nios2,
7 matches
Mail list logo