[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7b0a7afd-2776-0d95-19c5-3e15959744eb@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:44:00 +0530
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
To: Leonardo Bras <leonardo@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sh@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Yoshinori Sato <ysato@...rs.sourceforge.jp>, x86@...nel.org,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as
kprobe_page_fault()
On 06/10/2019 08:57 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 08:09 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed
>>>> + * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) {
>>>> + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap))
>>>
>>> don't need an 'if A if B', can do 'if A && B'
>>
>> Which will make it a very lengthy condition check.
>
> Well, is there any problem line-breaking the if condition?
>
> if (A && B && C &&
> D && E )
>
> Also, if it's used only to decide the return value, maybe would be fine
> to do somethink like that:
>
> return (A && B && C &&
> D && E );
Got it. But as Dave and Matthew had pointed out earlier, the current x86
implementation has better readability. Hence will probably stick with it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists