Re: [RFC/PATCH 02/22] s390/mm: Abstract gmap notify bit setting

[Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1799 bytes --]

On 10.11.2017 13:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.11.2017 23:29, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> Currently we use the software PGSTE bits PGSTE_IN_BIT and PGSTE_VSIE_BIT
>> to notify before an invalidation occurs on a prefix page or a VSIE page
>> respectively. Both bits only work for a PGSTE, which only exists for
>> page tables.
>>
>> For huge page support we also need such bits for segments (pmds) so
>> let's introduce abstract GMAP_ENTRY_* bits that will be realized into
>> the respective bits when gmap DAT table entries are protected.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
[...]
>> @@ -8,6 +8,10 @@
>>  #ifndef _ASM_S390_GMAP_H
>>  #define _ASM_S390_GMAP_H
>>  
>> +/* Generic bits for GMAP notification on DAT table entry changes. */
>> +#define GMAP_ENTRY_VSIE	0x2
>> +#define GMAP_ENTRY_IN	0x1
> 
> Can we rename
> GMAP_ENTRY_VSIE -> GMAP_ENTRY_SHADOW_IN
> 
> and also
> 
> PGSTE_VSIE_BIT -> PGSTE_SHADOW_IN_BIT

I'd like to keep the PGSTE bit names, the PGSTE bits are nicely
formatted and consistent in pgtable.h. The segment bit names are even
worse because of their length:

_SEGMENT_ENTRY_GMAP_VSIE

and if we'd use your naming it gets even longer:

_SEGMENT_ENTRY_GMAP_SHADOW_IN_BIT


I'll try to come up with something consistent and good sounding, but it
certainly isn't a #1 priority and I might fail to do so :)

> 
> as they are used for managing shadow page table invalidation.
> 
> Also, a better fitting name for ENTRY would be nice :)
> (GMAP_NOTIFY_...)

Yes, the ENTRY part came from the _SEGMENT_ENTRY_* constants, whose
names you might also dislike.

So I think I'll use:
GMAP_NOTIFY_PREFIX(_BIT)
GMAP_NOTIFY_SHADOW(_BIT)



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]