linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 03/28] gup: Change the calling convention for compound_range

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 00:25:25 -0800
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:     "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@...ck.org, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/28] gup: Change the calling convention for
 compound_range_next()

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 04:23:41AM +0000, Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) wrote:
> Return the head page instead of storing it to a passed parameter.
> Pass the start page directly instead of passing a pointer to it.

Looks good, but when we're changing the calling conventions anyway:

> -static inline void compound_range_next(unsigned long i, unsigned long npages,
> -				       struct page **list, struct page **head,
> -				       unsigned int *ntails)
> +static inline struct page *compound_range_next(unsigned long i,
> +		unsigned long npages, struct page *start, unsigned int *ntails)

To me the logical argument order would be something like:

static inline struct page *compound_range_next(struct page *start,
		unsigned long npages,, unsigned long i, unsigned int *ntails)

where the two first arguments pass in what is worked on and match the 
calling conventions of the caller.