[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7bb7d2be-9fa0-1b0d-17d1-adb7d58d5389@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2022 14:43:54 -0800
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: ira.weiny@...el.com, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V8 03/44] x86/pkeys: Create pkeys_common.h
On 1/27/22 09:54, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
>
> Protection Keys User (PKU) and Protection Keys Supervisor (PKS) work in
> similar fashions and can share common defines. Specifically PKS and PKU
> each have:
>
> 1. A single control register
> 2. The same number of keys
> 3. The same number of bits in the register per key
> 4. Access and Write disable in the same bit locations
>
> Given the above, share all the macros that synthesize and manipulate
> register values between the two features. Share these defines by moving
> them into a new header, change their names to reflect the common use,
> and include the header where needed.
I'd probably include *one* more sentence to prime the reader for the
pattern they are about to see. Perhaps:
This mostly takes the form of converting names from the PKU-
specific "PKRU" to the U/S-agnostic "PKR".
> Also while editing the code remove the use of 'we' from comments being
> touched.
>
> NOTE the checkpatch errors are ignored for the init_pkru_value to
> align the values in the code.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Either way, this looks fine:
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists