lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH 5/8] x86/mm: fix exception table comments
From
Date
On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 14:51 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > +  * Only do the expensive exception table search when we might be at
> > > +  * risk of a deadlock:
> > > +  * 1. We failed to acquire mmap_sem, and
> > > +  * 2. The access was an explicit kernel-mode access
> > > +  *    (X86_PF_USER=0).
> > Might be worth reminding the reader that X86_PF_USER will be set in
> > sw_error_code for implicit accesses.  I saw "explicit" and my mind
> > immediately jumped to hw_error_code for whatever reason.  E.g.:
> >
> > * 2. The access was an explicit kernel-mode access (we set X86_PF_USER
> > *    in sw_error_code for implicit kernel-mode accesses).
> Yeah, that was not worded well.  Is this better?
>
> >
> >          * Only do the expensive exception table search when we might be at
> >          * risk of a deadlock:
> >          * 1. We failed to acquire mmap_sem, and
> >          * 2. The access was an explicit kernel-mode access.  An access
> >          *    from user-mode will X86_PF_USER=1 set via hw_error_code or
> >          *    set in sw_error_code if it were an implicit kernel-mode
> >          *    access that originated in user mode.

For me, mentioning hw_error_code just muddies the waters, e.g. why is
hw_error_code mentioned when it's not checked in the code?  Comments
alone won't help someone that's reading this code and doesn't understand
that hardware sets X86_PF_USER for user-mode accesses.  Maybe this?

* 2. The access was an explicit kernel-mode access.  X86_PF_USER
*    is set in sw_error_code for both user-mode accesses and
*    implicit kernel-mode accesses that originated in user mode.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-10 22:43    [W:0.046 / U:0.332 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site