[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CACT4Y+ZUTkMgtQUiaS-7r-G=urYJo7LFZihZ4ZeimAmkg=0MyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2020 18:46:33 +0100
From: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Vincenzo Frascino <vincenzo.frascino@....com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Evgenii Stepanov <eugenis@...gle.com>,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
Serban Constantinescu <serbanc@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
Elena Petrova <lenaptr@...gle.com>,
Branislav Rankov <Branislav.Rankov@....com>,
Kevin Brodsky <kevin.brodsky@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kasan-dev <kasan-dev@...glegroups.com>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v2 12/21] kasan: inline and rename kasan_unpoison_memory
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:35 PM 'Andrey Konovalov' via kasan-dev
<kasan-dev@...glegroups.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 3:19 PM Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Currently kasan_unpoison_memory() is used as both an external annotation
> > > and as internal memory poisoning helper. Rename external annotation to
> > > kasan_unpoison_data() and inline the internal helper for for hardware
> > > tag-based mode to avoid undeeded function calls.
> > >
> > > There's the external annotation kasan_unpoison_slab() that is currently
> > > defined as static inline and uses kasan_unpoison_memory(). With this
> > > change it's turned into a function call. Overall, this results in the
> > > same number of calls for hardware tag-based mode as
> > > kasan_unpoison_memory() is now inlined.
> >
> > Can't we leave kasan_unpoison_slab as is? Or there are other reasons
> > to uninline it?
>
> Just to have cleaner kasan.h callbacks definitions.
>
> > It seems that uninling it is orthogonal to the rest of this patch.
>
> I can split it out into a separate patch if you think this makes sense?
I don't have a strong opinion either way.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists