Re: [cocci] [PATCH v3 4/6] arm64: nvhe: Convert the opencoded field modify

["Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2025 at 11:14:48AM -0400, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 12:23:10PM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 11:47:11 +0100,
> > Luo Jie <quic_luoj@quicinc.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Replaced below code with the wrapper FIELD_MODIFY(MASK, &reg, val)
> > > - reg &= ~MASK;
> > > - reg |= FIELD_PREP(MASK, val);
> > > The semantic patch that makes this change is available
> > > in scripts/coccinelle/misc/field_modify.cocci.
> > > 
> > > More information about semantic patching is available at
> > > https://coccinelle.gitlabpages.inria.fr/website
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Luo Jie <quic_luoj@quicinc.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/memory.h | 3 +--
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/memory.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/memory.h
> > > index 34233d586060..b2af748964d0 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/memory.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/memory.h
> > > @@ -30,8 +30,7 @@ enum pkvm_page_state {
> > >  static inline enum kvm_pgtable_prot pkvm_mkstate(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot,
> > >  						 enum pkvm_page_state state)
> > >  {
> > > -	prot &= ~PKVM_PAGE_STATE_PROT_MASK;
> > > -	prot |= FIELD_PREP(PKVM_PAGE_STATE_PROT_MASK, state);
> > > +	FIELD_MODIFY(PKVM_PAGE_STATE_PROT_MASK, &prot, state);
> > >  	return prot;
> > >  }
> > 
> > Following up on my suggestion to *not* add anything new, this patch
> > could be written as:
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/memory.h b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/memory.h
> > index 34233d5860607..08cb6ba0e0716 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/memory.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/include/nvhe/memory.h
> > @@ -30,9 +30,8 @@ enum pkvm_page_state {
> >  static inline enum kvm_pgtable_prot pkvm_mkstate(enum kvm_pgtable_prot prot,
> >  						 enum pkvm_page_state state)
> >  {
> > -	prot &= ~PKVM_PAGE_STATE_PROT_MASK;
> > -	prot |= FIELD_PREP(PKVM_PAGE_STATE_PROT_MASK, state);
> > -	return prot;
> > +	u64 p = prot;
> > +	return u64_replace_bits(p, state, PKVM_PAGE_STATE_PROT_MASK);
> >  }
> 
> This is a great example where u64_replace_bit() should NOT be used. 

Why not? Explain it. Don't leave people in the dark, because right
now it looks like it's purely a religous fanaticism about what
should and should not be used. Where's the technical reasoning?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!