[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <392180d4-95cf-fed9-5650-bbf52ec5c087@arm.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 11:16:06 +0100
From: Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>, kasan-dev@...glegroups.com,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Elena Petrova <lenaptr@...gle.com>,
Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/37] arm64: mte: Add in-kernel MTE helpers
On 9/18/20 10:36 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> Same as above but I will use the orr in the next version.
> I wonder whether system_supports_mte() makes more sense here than the
> alternative:
>
> if (!system_supports_mte())
> return 0xff;
>
> ... mte irg stuff ...
>
> (you could do the same for the mte_get_mem_tag() function)
>
This would have been my preference from the beginning but then you mentioned
alternatives ;)
Anyway, more then happy to change the code in this way, seems more clean and
easy to understand.
--
Regards,
Vincenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists