[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141016081633.GG7369@worktop.fdxtended.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 10:16:33 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Valdis Kletnieks <Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Erik Bosman <ebn310@....vu.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/5] x86: Clean up cr4 manipulation
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 03:57:35PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> +/* Set in this cpu's CR4. */
> +static inline void cr4_set(unsigned long mask)
> +{
> + unsigned long cr4;
> +
> + cr4 = read_cr4();
> + cr4 |= mask;
> + write_cr4(cr4);
> +}
> +
> +/* Clear in this cpu's CR4. */
> +static inline void cr4_clear(unsigned long mask)
> +{
> + unsigned long cr4;
> +
> + cr4 = read_cr4();
> + cr4 &= ~mask;
> + write_cr4(cr4);
> +}
I would have called these cr4_or() and cr4_nand(). When first reading
this I expected cr4_set() to be a pure write_cr4() and cr4_clear() to do
write_cr4(0) -- which obviously doesn't make too much sense.
cr4_{set,clear}_mask() might maybe be clearer but is more typing, and
the logical ops as suggested should have unambiguous meaning.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists