[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0e286b4-3005-71fb-3bb2-476944099d4e@huawei.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2022 18:43:06 +0800
From: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...osinc.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
<Conor.Dooley@...rochip.com>, <linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
Guohanjun <guohanjun@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/2] riscv: uaccess: rename
__get/put_user_nocheck to __get/put_mem_nocheck
在 2022/8/26 17:30, Arnd Bergmann 写道:
> On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 5:20 AM Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com> wrote:
>>
>> Current, The helpers __get/put_user_nocheck() is used by get/put_user() and
>> __get/put_kernel_nofault(), which is not always uaccess, so the name with
>> *user* is not appropriate.
>>
>> Also rename xxx_user_xxx to xxx_mem_xx on the call path of
>> __get/put_user_nocheck()
>>
>> Only refactor code without any functional changes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>
>
> I would prefer this not being done, it just makes riscv diverge from the
> code on other architectures. While the new name does make more sense,
> it ends up making it harder to refactor this across architectures in the end.
>
> There are two important cleanups that I would like to see done in
> asm/uaccess.h across architectures:
>
> - generalize the __get_user()/__put_user()/__get_kernel_nofault()/
> __put_kernel_nofault() wrappers to the point that architectures do not
> need to worry about the variable type stuff but instead just provide
> trivial fixed-length helpers of some sort
>
> - change the calling conventions in a way that allows the use of the
> asm-goto-with-output method for better object code on modern
> compilers.
>
> The x86 version already has most of this, with their
> __get_user_size() macro supporting both the asm-goto label
> and the error code assignment, so the generalized code should
> probably be based on that approach.
I am very interested in the implementation of X86. I need to investigate
and consider a cross architecture implementation.
However, I understand that the modification of the current patch has
little to do with the two points mentioned above. We can optimize the
code step by step.
Thanks,
Tong.
>
> Arnd
>
> .
Powered by blists - more mailing lists