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

Kumar Kartikeya Dwivedi
2021-06-22T22:12:04Z

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 really have no preference here though...

> -Toke
>

--
Kartikeya