From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] vfs: make no_llseek the default Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2010 15:18:28 +0200 Message-ID: <201007081518.28738.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1278538820-1392-1-git-send-email-arnd@arndb.de> <201007081408.06415.arnd@arndb.de> <201007082157.IFC26590.JMQSHOFFFOVLtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: jmorris@namei.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-security-module@vger.kernel.org, John Kacur , Christoph Hellwig , Frederic Weisbecker , Ingo Molnar , Julia Lawall To: Tetsuo Handa Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201007082157.IFC26590.JMQSHOFFFOVLtO@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On Thursday 08 July 2010, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > I see. [PATCH 16/18] ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/7/7/258 ) contains a line > > security/tomoyo/common.c | 1 + > > but no change in the patch. Patch was too large? Yes, the total patch is almost 200kb, which I considered too large. I explained this in the changelog. In retrospect, I probably should have sent it all anyway, because the changelog is already very long and a few other people did not realize this either because they did only read the patch but not the changelog. As I mentioned to Boaz Harrosh, the full patch is available on http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/arnd/bkl.git;a=patch;h=dc731e01d2a08eb66ae08c226c97aa0cb8cf7b7f and I'll send it out completely if I send out the series again. I first want to make sure we have consensus on the semantic patch though. In particular, I want to be sure everyone agrees on the following questions: - should we kill default_llseek in favour of a more generic generic_file_llseek that also covers special files? - if not, should default_llseek get renamed to something else? - should I bother adding .llseek=no_llseek if we make that the default in the next step anyway? - should I drop all the automatically generated comments? - Do I need to split this patch up into per-maintainer chunks and send them through the individual trees, or do we just apply the semantic patch treewide at the end of the merge window? Arnd