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 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 628E7C433E0 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:47:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49DDB64DE8 for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:47:34 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 49DDB64DE8 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=ellerman.id.au Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DhBHS5lY0z30MP for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:47:32 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=YqYRf21K; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=ellerman.id.au (client-ip=203.11.71.1; helo=ozlabs.org; envelope-from=mpe@ellerman.id.au; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ellerman.id.au header.i=@ellerman.id.au header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=201909 header.b=YqYRf21K; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from ozlabs.org (bilbo.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DhBH26lHnz30KT for ; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:47:10 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from authenticated.ozlabs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4DhBH15dZlz9sBy; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:47:09 +1100 (AEDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ellerman.id.au; s=201909; t=1613645230; bh=EKQFq6vpmkbDSEblNkTK4SHWV0oMhCYhSsyZaMd0VxM=; h=From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=YqYRf21KzNhnXhkea06tmykyfKq5MGeZBu28Tw0DNLix3/W2U02NqzskuCRofYVRI ihuHL6CFfUI5QSULFlhYPhveEfeZkeeCBC8BvpVxYVQ4J6ANpmSDA6Xi+n99Axnvnx zsu8vB1i6Q+tFG+ht4x7QV7bgCGwOJUFuL7BKMDLUhrldTW6CgSCo6WEgtCICh0IKq Ur/WkilsY8FzSy72BjtrIsh9oBtRoEs1QUBlze5iPX1vjwdAcZyCIaMvHZKYTS/qdE RcvYYXBKmerk/Ie5axLVtP+0IKFtORLtUCeO0NO2AmgHGSb6sQIJC4Oj9+8wZo+Bps 7yVlJNJHwor4g== From: Michael Ellerman To: "Christopher M. Riedl" , Daniel Axtens , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/10] powerpc/signal64: Remove TM ifdefery in middle of if/else block In-Reply-To: References: <20210203184323.20792-1-cmr@codefail.de> <20210203184323.20792-6-cmr@codefail.de> <874kiheu93.fsf@dja-thinkpad.axtens.net> Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 21:47:08 +1100 Message-ID: <871rddvej7.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" "Christopher M. Riedl" writes: > On Thu Feb 11, 2021 at 11:21 PM CST, Daniel Axtens wrote: ... >> >> My only concern here was whether it was valid to access >> if (__get_user(msr, &uc->uc_mcontext.gp_regs[PT_MSR])) >> if CONFIG_PPC_TRANSACTIONAL_MEM was not defined, but I didn't think of >> any obvious reason why it wouldn't be... > > Hmm, we don't really need it for the non-TM case and it is another extra > uaccess. I will take your suggestion to remove the need for the other > ifdefs but might keep this one. Keeping it also makes it very clear this > call is only here for TM and possible to remove in a potentially TM-less > future :) Yep I agree. cheers