Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] arm64/hugetlb: Introduce new huge_ptep_get_access_flags() interface

[nh26223@qq.com]

----------------8<---------------
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> index ca8e65c..ce39699 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> @@ -158,6 +158,30 @@ static inline int num_contig_ptes(unsigned long
> >> size,
> >> size_t *pgsize) return contig_ptes;
> >> 
> >>   }
> >> 
> >> +pte_t huge_ptep_get_access_flags(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long sz)
> > 
> > The function name looks to me that it returns access flags of PTE.
> 
> Yes, not a good name. That's why this is a RFC patch set to get more
> suggestion :)
> 
> Maybe huge_ptep_get_with_access_flags()? or do you have some better idea?
I don't have either. "Naming is hard". :)

> >> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
> >> b/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
> >> index a57d667..bb77fb0 100644
> >> --- a/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
> >> +++ b/include/asm-generic/hugetlb.h
> >> @@ -150,6 +150,13 @@ static inline pte_t huge_ptep_get(pte_t *ptep)
> >> 
> >>   }
> >>   #endif
> >> 
> >> +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET_ACCESS_FLAGS
> >> +static inline pte_t huge_ptep_get_access_flags(pte_t *ptep, unsigned
> >> long
> >> sz) +{
> >> +	return ptep_get(ptep);
> > 
> > Should be:
> > 	return huge_ptep_get(ptep) ?
> 
> I don't think so. If no ARCH-specific definition, the
> huge_ptep_get_access_flags() implementation should be same as
> huge_ptep_get(). Thanks for your comments.
If no __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET, huge_ptep_get() is same as
ptep_get().

Or it's not possible no __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET_ACCESS_FLAGS
but with __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET?


Regards
Yin, Fengwei

> 
> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_PTEP_GET
> static inline pte_t huge_ptep_get(pte_t *ptep)
> {
>          return ptep_get(ptep);
> }
> #endif