Re: [PATCH net-next v3 2/5] bitops: add non-atomic bitops for pointers

Toke Høiland-Jørgensen
2021-06-22T23:03:19Z

Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 03:22:51AM IST, Toke Høiland-Jørgensen wrote:
>> Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > cpumap needs to set, clear, and test the lowest bit in skb pointer in
>> > various places. To make these checks less noisy, add pointer friendly
>> > bitop macros that also do some typechecking to sanitize the argument.
>> >
>> > These wrap the non-atomic bitops __set_bit, __clear_bit, and test_bit
>> > but for pointer arguments. Pointer's address has to be passed in and it
>> > is treated as an unsigned long *, since width and representation of
>> > pointer and unsigned long match on targets Linux supports. They are
>> > prefixed with double underscore to indicate lack of atomicity.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi <memxor@gmail.com>
>> > ---
>> > include/linux/bitops.h | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
>> > include/linux/typecheck.h | 10 ++++++++++
>> > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/include/linux/bitops.h b/include/linux/bitops.h
>> > index 26bf15e6cd35..a9e336b9fa4d 100644
>> > --- a/include/linux/bitops.h
>> > +++ b/include/linux/bitops.h
>> > @@ -4,6 +4,7 @@
>> >
>> > #include <asm/types.h>
>> > #include <linux/bits.h>
>> > +#include <linux/typecheck.h>
>> >
>> > #include <uapi/linux/kernel.h>
>> >
>> > @@ -253,6 +254,24 @@ static __always_inline void __assign_bit(long nr, volatile unsigned long *addr,
>> > __clear_bit(nr, addr);
>> > }
>> >
>> > +#define __ptr_set_bit(nr, addr) \
>> > + ({ \
>> > + typecheck_pointer(*(addr)); \
>> > + __set_bit(nr, (unsigned long *)(addr)); \
>> > + })
>> > +
>> > +#define __ptr_clear_bit(nr, addr) \
>> > + ({ \
>> > + typecheck_pointer(*(addr)); \
>> > + __clear_bit(nr, (unsigned long *)(addr)); \
>> > + })
>> > +
>> > +#define __ptr_test_bit(nr, addr) \
>> > + ({ \
>> > + typecheck_pointer(*(addr)); \
>> > + test_bit(nr, (unsigned long *)(addr)); \
>> > + })
>> > +
>>
>> Before these were functions that returned the modified values, now they
>> are macros that modify in-place. Why the change? :)
>>
>
> Given that we're exporting this to all kernel users now, it felt more
> appropriate to follow the existing convention/argument order for the
> functions/ops they are wrapping.

I wasn't talking about the order of the arguments; swapping those is
fine. But before, you had:

static void *__ptr_set_bit(void *ptr, int bit)

with usage (function return is the modified value):
ret = ptr_ring_produce(rcpu->queue, __ptr_set_bit(skb, 0));

now you have:
#define __ptr_set_bit(nr, addr)

with usage (modifies argument in-place):
__ptr_set_bit(0, &skb);
ret = ptr_ring_produce(rcpu->queue, skb);

why change from function to macro?

-Toke