linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -mm -v4 01/21] mm, THP, swap: Enable PMD swap operations for CONFIG_THP

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <87bmbglxyd.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 09 Jul 2018 14:34:02 +0800
From:   "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
        <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>, <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -mm -v4 01/21] mm, THP, swap: Enable PMD swap operations for CONFIG_THP_SWAP

Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:

> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018 at 10:40 PM, Huang, Ying <ying.huang@...el.com> wrote:
>> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:

>>> Would that also allow us to clean up the usage of
>>> CONFIG_ARCH_ENABLE_THP_MIGRATION in fs/proc/task_mmu.c? In other
>>> words, what's the point of having nice ifdef'd alternatives in header
>>> files when ifdefs are still showing up in C files, all of it should be
>>> optionally determined by header files.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I think it is not a easy task to wrap all C code via
>> #ifdef in header files.  And it may be over-engineering to wrap them
>> all.  I guess this is why there are still some #ifdef in C files.
>
> That's the entire point. Yes, over-engineer the header files so the
> actual C code is more readable.

Take pagemap_pmd_range() in fs/proc/task_mmu.c as an example, to avoid
#ifdef, we may wrap all code between #ifdef/#endif into a separate
function, put the new function into another C file (which is compiled
only if #ifdef is true), then change header files for that too.

In this way, we avoid #ifdef/#endif, but the code is more complex and
tightly related code may be put into different files.  The readability
may be hurt too.

Maybe you have smarter way to change the code to avoid #ifdef and
improve code readability?

Best Regards,
Huang, Ying