Re: [PATCH 08/16 v4] pramfs: headers

[Paul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>]

On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:00:15AM +0100, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> +/*
> + * Debug code
> + */
> +#define pram_dbg(s, args...)	pr_debug("PRAMFS: "s, ## args)
> +#define pram_err(s, args...)	pr_err("PRAMFS: "s, ## args)
> +#define pram_warn(s, args...)	pr_warning("PRAMFS: "s, ## args)
> +#define pram_info(s, args...)	pr_info("PRAMFS: "s, ## args)
> +
Please kill off all of this and just use KBUILD_MODNAME centrally.

> +#ifdef CONFIG_PRAMFS_WRITE_PROTECT
> +extern void pram_writeable(void *vaddr, unsigned long size, int rw);
> +
> +#define wrprotect(addr, size) pram_writeable(addr, size, 0)
> +
> +#else
> +
> +#define wrprotect(addr, size) do {} while (0)
> +
> +#endif /* CONFIG PRAMFS_WRITE_PROTECT */
> +
Perhaps this should be pram_wrprotect()? Does this really benefit from
being a config option instead of a mount option? Will this handle
multiple mounts with some write protected and others not?

> +#ifdef CONFIG_PRAMFS_WRITE_PROTECT
> +static inline void pram_memunlock_range(void *p, unsigned long len)
> +{
> +#ifndef CONFIG_X86
> +	local_irq_disable();
> +#endif
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	pram_writeable(p, len, 1);
> +}
> +
This needs some explaining, or killing. While the latter is preferable,
we can also work with the former.