From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce pte_isset for arm and arm64
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:36:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140224173624.GH2553@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1393256005-2206-1-git-send-email-steve.capper@linaro.org>
Hi Steve,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 03:33:23PM +0000, Steve Capper wrote:
> Long descriptors on ARM and all ptes on ARM64 are 64 bits. Some pte
> attribute test functions such as pte_dirty return the bitwise-and of a
> flag with the pte value. If the flag to be tested resides in the
> upper 32 bits of the pte, then we run into the danger of the result
> being dropped if downcast.
>
> For example:
> gather_stats(page, md, pte_dirty(*pte), 1);
> where pte_dirty(*pte) is downcast to an int.
>
> Under ARM with LPAE, functions such as huge_pte_write also perform a
> downcast to unsigned long (which is 32 bits).
>
> This series introduces a new macro pte_isset which performs the bitwise
> and, then performs a double logical invert to ensure predictable
> downcasting.
>
> The reasoning behind a new macro was that it creates an obvious
> pattern which can be followed by future changes to the pte functions.
> Rather than target specific pte functions, I opted to wrap all of them
> with this macro for the sake of simplicity (also the flags may move in
> future).
>
> I was toying with using (bool), but decided that the !! looked slightly
> better. Under testing (with an Arndale and the Fast Model on 3.14-rc4)
> both strategies worked as expected.
Ok, but I still don't understand why this is needed over your previous
series. Just inlining the '!!' into the existing accessors should be fine,
no? Basically, I don't see what the new macro gains us.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-24 17:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-24 15:33 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce pte_isset for arm and arm64 Steve Capper
2014-02-24 15:33 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] arm: mm: Introduce pte_isset(pte,flag) Steve Capper
2014-02-24 15:33 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] arm64: " Steve Capper
2014-02-24 17:36 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2014-02-24 17:43 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] Introduce pte_isset for arm and arm64 Steve Capper
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140224173624.GH2553@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).