From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] arm64/mm: Implement pte_po_index() for permission overlay index
Date: Fri, 9 May 2025 16:02:33 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250509150232.GA5984@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <16ffa9f2-5ebb-4839-ab87-3c193ab9683a@arm.com>
On Mon, May 05, 2025 at 02:20:46PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>
>
> On 4/29/25 22:15, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> > On 29/04/2025 16:11, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 11:14:42AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >>> From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
> >>>
> >>> Previously pte_access_permitted() used FIELD_GET() directly to retrieve
> >>> the permission overlay index from the pte. However, FIELD_GET() doesn't
> >>> work for 128 bit quanitites. Since we are about to add support for D128
> >>> pgtables, let's create a specific helper, pte_po_index() which can do
> >>> the required mask and shift regardless of the data type width.
> >>
> >> You say:
> >>
> >> "we are about to add support for D128 pgtables"
> >
> > Providing some context: Anshuman has a private branch that adds D128 pgtable
> > support to the kernel (it does not yet do this for KVM). I originally created
> > this patch to fix a bug on that branch, so the "we are about to add ..." comment
> > really only makes sense in that context.
> >
> > We are not yet ready to post D128 upstream - there are still a lot of questions
> > to answer - but Anshuman has been posting some of the reshuffling and cleanups
> > that prepare the way for D128 where (we think) it makes sense. The aim is to
> > reduce the diff as much as we can.
>
> Agreed. All these patches have been really harmless clean ups and re-orgs etc,
> that do not affect existing 64 bit page table management or its functioning in
> any manner. OTOH these changes help the kernel prepare for D128 enablement.
In this case, I wouldn't call it harmless clean-up. You're actively
removing the use of helper macros which is inevitably going to result in
churn.
Please teach FIELD_GET() to work with 128-bit types instead.
Will
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-05-09 20:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-15 5:44 [PATCH V2] arm64/mm: Implement pte_po_index() for permission overlay index Anshuman Khandual
2025-04-29 15:11 ` Will Deacon
2025-04-29 16:45 ` Ryan Roberts
2025-05-05 8:50 ` Anshuman Khandual
2025-05-09 15:02 ` Will Deacon [this message]
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=20250509150232.GA5984@willie-the-truck \
--to=will@kernel.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
/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