From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 154B6C10F1A for ; Thu, 9 May 2024 05:59:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s4wo3-0006ra-PM; Thu, 09 May 2024 01:59:03 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s4wo0-0006rE-5H; Thu, 09 May 2024 01:59:01 -0400 Received: from mail-pl1-x62f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1s4wnx-0001kH-1n; Thu, 09 May 2024 01:58:59 -0400 Received: by mail-pl1-x62f.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1ed96772f92so3993035ad.0; Wed, 08 May 2024 22:58:55 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1715234334; x=1715839134; darn=nongnu.org; h=in-reply-to:references:to:from:subject:cc:message-id:date :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=Msw3yMNt09dpy0EpHwPl7f/EyCepMzXGNFkvIh20Bdk=; b=NYEGJEaeHdoBOOr0JZun838ETZMvMM9bVbAAf0iOQ/jy7mXJ20N7wTqXw89dJyJy89 Ya+NC/X8TaDzvO4cpMuE7U31lG1hBb4gUxH8bVclr/X9CqBkUySroFqGhREvxbRi+U0+ 83wbJ5mp1/pDXf5ilAtAGV6YGh3HnQi5MsFUhkFj2bFgpvHPL6/oKGJXyUsyvs/Idt42 7yKcktS8IHan+zxoa/lXDIg1QVFms4wvOJxd+3oQjhJ01xeiIthjvtG+rUAfATEMIkKo eFsXB3ek3XzrXMjTpIS7q6SVhlCBeummuaGd2wY2AugQhSwjy12O0qX6ugGB3u6pPwfp HQdg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1715234334; x=1715839134; h=in-reply-to:references:to:from:subject:cc:message-id:date :content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Msw3yMNt09dpy0EpHwPl7f/EyCepMzXGNFkvIh20Bdk=; b=MTeo0W/tkEKeO0sZfmJfTc1TbhI+po8GpHFEpfl4G6spsgtLT6L8apUuK364OikN1s ly5AWZuRn4ptpr8KQckKSDbkc0+rgzKOU+srSEfnWmFOJZVgdLQZzRYZ3uaN7QayBI+x DT+7HM/7FthR4sh3OSyNLVNPiVZ09R+PO80i4zBgqg2feOtA/urmtPb1i73MsXjm8u7I RQZM5LpsvhcquUJX0pK4BIrkCbz/+Ag66gy/jUO44rveqqnhCbyA5oPUk/XTomuVqU8P BJK7a8a5SN/4NN8gYMhsAO0eq+XsOseDd5GhuK/6LOiP47QdmGtZaMwizBYaI1m/v+d5 AdRQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCURikRuGhk3uS2tOrHsDmfOnDoLKyGQcLKAxljSsds2zjlssqX5DaIM97gRXbntM79ByvMK2mTqYQEMBOgsP+4D5zKG X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyA64Sasfv+j/GOTgeu+vm1Rn27pKz6ivCr0oBYaDSpxs+sIzVe s8HrsvuYrNXprNKEx6la2lOTXoVgqWQy2d+LEh4Z90h0YzkxlmgH X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFrb8Vojuz2lrDAGSxMJaKalda7zthPGQ39rDXL7lnJkO88HP1psL+D2Jj2R4NS2zz74jwGhQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:1c7:b0:1eb:fb02:c454 with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1eeb059f16dmr55492045ad.53.1715234334217; Wed, 08 May 2024 22:58:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (220-245-239-57.tpgi.com.au. [220.245.239.57]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d9443c01a7336-1ef0c13805asm5487525ad.264.2024.05.08.22.58.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 May 2024 22:58:53 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 09 May 2024 15:58:49 +1000 Message-Id: Cc: , , "Daniel Henrique Barboza" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 33/33] target/ppc: Add a macro to check for page protection bit From: "Nicholas Piggin" To: "BALATON Zoltan" X-Mailer: aerc 0.17.0 References: <7c4e51de-fdff-37b6-ffe5-2e7e26cffc17@eik.bme.hu> In-Reply-To: <7c4e51de-fdff-37b6-ffe5-2e7e26cffc17@eik.bme.hu> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::62f; envelope-from=npiggin@gmail.com; helo=mail-pl1-x62f.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Thu May 9, 2024 at 9:35 AM AEST, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > On Wed, 8 May 2024, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > On Wed May 8, 2024 at 10:15 AM AEST, BALATON Zoltan wrote: > >> Checking if a page protection bit is set for a given access type is a > >> common operation. Add a macro to avoid repeating the same check at > >> multiple places and also avoid a function call. As this relies on > >> access type and page protection bit values having certain relation > >> also add an assert to ensure that this assumption holds. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: BALATON Zoltan > >> --- > >> target/ppc/cpu_init.c | 4 ++++ > >> target/ppc/internal.h | 20 ++------------------ > >> target/ppc/mmu-hash32.c | 6 +++--- > >> target/ppc/mmu-hash64.c | 2 +- > >> target/ppc/mmu-radix64.c | 2 +- > >> target/ppc/mmu_common.c | 26 +++++++++++++------------- > >> 6 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu_init.c b/target/ppc/cpu_init.c > >> index 92c71b2a09..6639235544 100644 > >> --- a/target/ppc/cpu_init.c > >> +++ b/target/ppc/cpu_init.c > >> @@ -7377,6 +7377,10 @@ static void ppc_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc,= void *data) > >> resettable_class_set_parent_phases(rc, NULL, ppc_cpu_reset_hold, = NULL, > >> &pcc->parent_phases); > >> > >> + /* CHECK_PROT_ACCESS relies on this MMU access and PAGE bits rela= tion */ > >> + assert(MMU_DATA_LOAD =3D=3D 0 && MMU_DATA_STORE =3D=3D 1 && MMU_I= NST_FETCH =3D=3D 2 && > >> + PAGE_READ =3D=3D 1 && PAGE_WRITE =3D=3D 2 && PAGE_EXEC =3D= =3D 4); > >> + > > > > Can you use qemu_build_assert() for this? > > I've changed it to qemu_build_assert and seems to work. > > >> cc->class_by_name =3D ppc_cpu_class_by_name; > >> cc->has_work =3D ppc_cpu_has_work; > >> cc->mmu_index =3D ppc_cpu_mmu_index; > >> diff --git a/target/ppc/internal.h b/target/ppc/internal.h > >> index 46176c4711..9880422ce3 100644 > >> --- a/target/ppc/internal.h > >> +++ b/target/ppc/internal.h > >> @@ -234,24 +234,8 @@ void destroy_ppc_opcodes(PowerPCCPU *cpu); > >> void ppc_gdb_init(CPUState *cs, PowerPCCPUClass *ppc); > >> const gchar *ppc_gdb_arch_name(CPUState *cs); > >> > >> -/** > >> - * prot_for_access_type: > >> - * @access_type: Access type > >> - * > >> - * Return the protection bit required for the given access type. > >> - */ > >> -static inline int prot_for_access_type(MMUAccessType access_type) > >> -{ > >> - switch (access_type) { > >> - case MMU_INST_FETCH: > >> - return PAGE_EXEC; > >> - case MMU_DATA_LOAD: > >> - return PAGE_READ; > >> - case MMU_DATA_STORE: > >> - return PAGE_WRITE; > >> - } > >> - g_assert_not_reached(); > >> -} > >> +/* Check if permission bit required for the access_type is set in pro= t */ > >> +#define CHECK_PROT_ACCESS(prot, access_type) ((prot) & (1 << (access_= type))) > > > > We don't want to use a macro when an inline function will work. > > > > Does the compiler not see the pattern and transform the existing > > code into a shift? If it does then I would leave it. If not, then > > just keep prot_for_access_type but make it a shift and maybe > > comment the logic. > > > > I would call the new function check_prot_for_access_type(). > > That would be too long and does not fit on one line. Long names with=20 > underscore and 80 char line limit does not go well together. I've left=20 > this unchanged for now and wait for your reply on this. Just split the line at the second argument. Better name is more important than minimising line count. Thanks, Nick