From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D04B5C433F5 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 04:10:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4B6816B0071; Mon, 9 May 2022 00:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 43E206B0073; Mon, 9 May 2022 00:10:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 2DFAF6B0074; Mon, 9 May 2022 00:10:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0011.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.11]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A43F6B0071 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 00:10:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D2C301CD for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 04:10:25 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79444877610.02.5492D67 Received: from out203-205-221-245.mail.qq.com (out203-205-221-245.mail.qq.com [203.205.221.245]) by imf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 035DC40078 for ; Mon, 9 May 2022 04:10:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=qq.com; s=s201512; t=1652069421; bh=rXdOd65hMm5hoaHpHm76maPJy+HmTKeLeOMWZkqdyio=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=eF0i7u0iItd/wjHxZNK3aX5P58RsBTBGsBeio++PtNlo9FUQok3dVUTjt/IXlnidc QjmXdNROThPudsYiw/J+U8hvzrH2GEplNID71QyufSvk2POd4yI1SyQSwhFWRVc/K6 suYWlDFCWhiHJ8YOcDUNSRx5fETWCQ9j+uw6P064= Received: from fyin-linux.localnet ([101.228.227.122]) by newxmesmtplogicsvrszc9.qq.com (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id 2922008D; Mon, 09 May 2022 12:10:18 +0800 X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1652069418ts1isakbn Message-ID: X-QQ-XMAILINFO: MB5+LsFw85NoOEDwDfp2I5Yr6NrQ+vO52lNRSFbVExnZvmGdoDOJpBpOSv2O4p pURzwvovZlLK7Y+jn14wV/A5V7kT+JAyLg9+Gb6tgsHgexCbB69qfwOdSlOtMcGAZuXXUuikcyIk tNV51HD3vvK6vRrDRqptq1RkNBJ/plF0dxqiMFETgXLMH8emas6xDLlLAc6iAQ2KQLBNejYRS6CW M74eoLIjhSLnCyxcPc3BKQRIoAUIrql0e7R4MpRiDkY9fizldk69Ad9wcpPUgheqjH4n8EdIUsD4 DDTYt3+EO8lzHe5iGFqlOZCqCrztyh7MrGC32Gvr0CxZBLDj6aIGRPqwB6MXL5L83lj8mJAD71vy uiPKqzoW+g23mbBpfX5Tl0fHCnwFdCg07uWfZVIG/hDVQuLT88eXPQnqXIuJ9WYN8MzcbSdZHMDY uCoWk3WqRU15mDY234unIWWmsqH/hbrdtwGSlmw80sb/J/ER9o/+RKSspx/mEYLgQ2g7rf7a9flk xv2mebPj0nHkNAg+6rxBMaHoxKTWgHUpN6l0mJO8EOnNUDU5lahrCo59ez40tz9Ad+Xa2q7gQsas nxA20RUQXh0nB9kXB4uOSGZyZYIgQ5kH8CFEqVs2EggSOhayWI11tyyTI9DqRKafZRCaGqErgvIu LAkd4ySSDwrOrevucONxZrmFjAWC73PtL/rSzT+WJzDdWiGUmQeyK4c5ruSDKRS0TL4JHMu3qgnM +Q9sQUe8hWSVapKyj5FmVCFfXjoTjZeTIc5baVLPQdewDVMHffgiSwlukV2UrYrTHUE2aFrMDlDx QyVuE22sWpTXG+Kg6H+apM55Jg9tRALBHtDCcice6Xp3kolTcyX4lCZ7al/oXTF4dyJnxVOJ8dq1 GivPO4hcM4uYXdn60wHCCvravgqKDOxw== From: nh26223@qq.com To: nh26223@qq.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de, mike.kravetz@oracle.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, sj@kernel.org, Baolin Wang Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] arm64/hugetlb: Introduce new huge_ptep_get_access_flags() interface Date: Mon, 09 May 2022 12:10:17 +0800 X-OQ-MSGID: <10327880.YXo3adf8J7@fyin-linux> In-Reply-To: <5e33cf5e-2c48-89fe-3447-2f29c7844928@linux.alibaba.com> References: <5e33cf5e-2c48-89fe-3447-2f29c7844928@linux.alibaba.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Authentication-Results: imf11.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=qq.com header.s=s201512 header.b=eF0i7u0i; dmarc=pass (policy=quarantine) header.from=qq.com; spf=pass (imf11.hostedemail.com: domain of nh26223@qq.com designates 203.205.221.245 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=nh26223@qq.com X-Rspamd-Server: rspam06 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 035DC40078 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: m9tmkaa9qqbto4p3ca36c4gp9fxtfx3a X-HE-Tag: 1652069419-896851 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000107, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: ----------------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