* Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:21:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Tony Luck <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Make use of the EXTABLE_FAULT exception table entries. This routine
> > > returns a structure to indicate the result of the copy:
> >
> > So the series looks good to me, but I have some (mostly readability)
> > comments that
> > went beyond what I usually fix up manually:
> >
> > > struct mcsafe_ret {
> > > u64 trapnr;
> > > u64 remain;
> > > };
> >
> > > +struct mcsafe_ret {
> > > + u64 trapnr;
> > > + u64 remain;
> > > +};
> >
> > Yeah, so please change this to something like:
> >
> > struct mcsafe_ret {
> > u64 trap_nr;
> > u64 bytes_left;
> > };
> >
> > this makes it crystal clear what the fields are about and what their unit
> > is.
> > Readability is king and modern consoles are wide enough, no need to
> > abbreviate
> > excessively.
>
> I prefer to use my modern console width to display multiple columns of
> text, instead of wasting it to display mostly whitespace. Therefore I
> still very much prefer ~80 char wide code.
This naming won't hurt the col80 limit.
> > Also, I'd suggest we postfix the new mcsafe functions with '_mcsafe', not
> > prefix them. Special properties of memcpy routines are usually postfixes -
> > such as _nocache(), _toio(), etc.
>
> I think the whole notion of mcsafe here is 'wrong'. This copy variant simply
> reports the kind of trap that happened (#PF or #MC) and could arguably be
> extended to include more types if the hardware were to generate more.
What would a better name be? memcpy_ret() or so?
Thanks,
Ingo
