On Thu, Apr 30, 2020 at 1:41 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams(a)intel.com> wrote:
With the above realizations the name "mcsafe" is no longer accurate and
copy_safe() is proposed as its replacement. x86 grows a copy_safe_fast()
implementation as a default implementation that is independent of
detecting the presence of x86-MCA.
How is this then different from "probe_kernel_read()" and
"probe_kernel_write()"? Other than the obvious "it does it for both
reads and writes"?
IOW, wouldn't it be sensible to try to match the naming and try to
find some unified model for all these things?