From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 11/15] pci: Add pci_iomap_shared{,_range} Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2021 18:26:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20210829181635-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20210805005218.2912076-1-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> <20210805005218.2912076-12-sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com> <20210823195409-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <26a3cce5-ddf7-cbe6-a41e-58a2aea48f78@linux.intel.com> <20210824053830-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20210829112105-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <09b340dd-c8a8-689c-4dad-4fe0e36d39ae@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1630275990; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=w+MBpgO+PBJKHqx0Y7eErLZSvPvNS8U9WRpzvSbhkVw=; b=gAmBZHwpZem49MSfu5U/CZ/a5gr5V2xPAiE8x7s7qTrcmyfHUZMhvXgnbBO48QN3T2mExC dO1u1BknmTb7tV0FmR+iQOV+BEZ7G638rsmFUPAERL53ZoCG+bUOEYbJE+c6RSOTkl8b/o ajJCJ6lUbgZfEZWmQfT67AkAmqdybSI= Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <09b340dd-c8a8-689c-4dad-4fe0e36d39ae@linux.intel.com> List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Andi Kleen Cc: Dan Williams , "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , Andy Lutomirski , Bjorn Helgaas , Richard Henderson , Thomas Bogendoerfer , James E J Bottomley , Helge Deller , "David S . Miller" , Arnd Bergmann , Jonathan Corbet , Peter H Anvin , Dave Hansen , Tony Luck , Kirill Shutemov On Sun, Aug 29, 2021 at 09:17:53AM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > Also I changing this single call really that bad? It's not that we changing > anything drastic here, just give the low level subsystem a better hint about > the intention. If you don't like the function name, could make it an > argument instead? My point however is that the API should say that the driver has been audited, not that the mapping has been done in some special way. For example the mapping can be in some kind of wrapper, not directly in the driver. However you want the driver validated, not the wrapper. Here's an idea: diff --git a/include/linux/audited.h b/include/linux/audited.h new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..e23fd6ad50db --- /dev/null +++ b/include/linux/audited.h @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ +#ifndef AUDITED_MODULE +#define AUDITED_MODULE +#endif Now any audited driver must do #include first of all. Implementation-wise it can do any number of things, e.g. if you like then sure you can do: #ifdef AUDITED_MODULE #define pci_ioremap pci_ioremap_shared #else #define pci_ioremap pci_ioremap #endif but you can also thinkably do something like (won't work, but just to give you the idea): #ifdef AUDITED_MODULE #define __init __init #else #define __init #endif or any number of hacks like this. -- MST