From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1426114AbcBRKUP (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 05:20:15 -0500
Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]:36353 "EHLO
	mail-wm0-f48.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1426063AbcBRKTq (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 18 Feb 2016 05:19:46 -0500
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:19:42 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 3/4] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy()
Message-ID: <20160218101942.GA9386@gmail.com>
References: <cover.1455732970.git.tony.luck@intel.com>
 <be86a03141b015d5a5e9477849585a62d4635308.1455732970.git.tony.luck@intel.com>
 <20160218082107.GA17851@gmail.com>
 <20160218095905.GC25010@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160218095905.GC25010@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:21:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > * Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Make use of the EXTABLE_FAULT exception table entries. This routine
> > > returns a structure to indicate the result of the copy:
> > 
> > So the series looks good to me, but I have some (mostly readability) comments that 
> > went beyond what I usually fix up manually:
> > 
> > > struct mcsafe_ret {
> > >         u64 trapnr;
> > >         u64 remain;
> > > };
> > 
> > > +struct mcsafe_ret {
> > > +	u64 trapnr;
> > > +	u64 remain;
> > > +};
> > 
> > Yeah, so please change this to something like:
> > 
> >   struct mcsafe_ret {
> >           u64 trap_nr;
> >           u64 bytes_left;
> >   };
> > 
> > this makes it crystal clear what the fields are about and what their unit is. 
> > Readability is king and modern consoles are wide enough, no need to abbreviate 
> > excessively.
> 
> I prefer to use my modern console width to display multiple columns of
> text, instead of wasting it to display mostly whitespace. Therefore I
> still very much prefer ~80 char wide code.

This naming won't hurt the col80 limit.

> > Also, I'd suggest we postfix the new mcsafe functions with '_mcsafe', not 
> > prefix them. Special properties of memcpy routines are usually postfixes - 
> > such as _nocache(), _toio(), etc.
> 
> I think the whole notion of mcsafe here is 'wrong'. This copy variant simply 
> reports the kind of trap that happened (#PF or #MC) and could arguably be 
> extended to include more types if the hardware were to generate more.

What would a better name be? memcpy_ret() or so?

Thanks,

	Ingo