Hi Mark,
Thank you for reviewing this work.
> A commit message should provide rationale, rather than just a
> description of the patch. Something like:
>
> | We currently duplicate the logic to enable/disable uaccess via TTBR0,
> | with C functions and assembly macros. This is a maintenenace burden
> | and is liable to lead to subtle bugs, so let's get rid of the assembly
> | macros, and always use the C functions. This requires refactoring
> | some assembly functions to have a C wrapper.
Thank you for suggestion, I will fix my commit log.
>
> [...]
>
> > +static inline int invalidate_icache_range(unsigned long start,
> > + unsigned long end)
> > +{
> > + int rv;
> > +#if ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC
> > + rv = arch_invalidate_icache_range(start, end);
> > +#else
> > + uaccess_ttbr0_enable();
> > + rv = arch_invalidate_icache_range(start, end);
> > + uaccess_ttbr0_disable();
> > +#endif
> > + return rv;
> > +}
>
> This ifdeffery is not the same as an alternative_if, and even if it were
> the ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC behaviour is not the same as the existing
> assembly.
>
> This should be:
>
> static inline int invalidate_icache_range(unsigned long start,
> unsigned long end)
> {
> int ret;
>
> if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC)) {
> isb();
> return 0;
> }
>
> uaccess_ttbr0_enable();
> ret = arch_invalidate_icache_range(start, end);
> uaccess_ttbr0_disable();
>
> return ret;
> }
I will fix it, thanks.
>
> The 'arch_' prefix should probably be 'asm_' (or have an '_asm' suffix),
> since this is entirely local to the arch code, and even then should only
> be called from the C wrappers.
Sure, I can change it to asm_*, I was using arch_* to be consistent
with __arch_copy_from_user() and friends.
Thank you,
Pasha
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
