[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200720091435.GM10769@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:14:35 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 02/17] x86/fpu: Refactor
arch_set_user_pkey_access() for PKS support
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 01:52:55PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:54:42AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Then we at least have a little clue wtf the thing does.. Yes I started
> > with a rename and then got annoyed at the implementation too.
>
> On the code I think this is fair. I've also updated the calling function to be
> a bit cleaner as well.
>
> However, I think the name 'update' is a bit misleading. Here is the new
> calling code:
>
> ...
> pkru = read_pkru();
> pkru = update_pkey_reg(pkru, pkey, init_val);
> write_pkru(pkru);
> ...
>
>
> I think it is odd to have a function called update_pkey_reg() called right
> before a write_pkru(). Can we call this update_pkey_value? or just 'val'?
> Because write_pkru() actually updates the register.
Fair enough, update_pkey_val() works fine for me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists