Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 5 Nov 2021 10:16:16 +0000 | From | Mark Rutland <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH 07/22] x86,extable: Extend extable functionality |
| |
On Fri, Nov 05, 2021 at 08:54:00AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 02:49:35PM -0700, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 05:47:36PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > int ex_get_fixup_type(unsigned long ip) > > > { > > > const struct exception_table_entry *e = search_exception_tables(ip); > > > > > > - return e ? e->type : EX_TYPE_NONE; > > > + return e ? FIELD_GET(EX_TYPE_MASK, e->type) : EX_TYPE_NONE; > > > > Maybe the 'type' field should be renamed, to better represent its new > > use, and to try to discourage direct access. Not that I have any good > > ideas. Some not-so-good ideas: "handler", "flags", "_type". > > How about the non-descript: "data" ?
FWIW, I was going to have a single `data` or `info` field on arm64, and I only went with separate 16-bit `type` and `data` fields becuase it was *marginally* simpler. If we needed more data bits in future I'd probably collapse `type` into the `data` field. So you'd be in good company. ;)
On arm64 I'd named the masks EX_DATA_* to make the hierarchy clear, so maybe you'd want to s/EX_TYPE_MASK/EX_DATA_TYPE/ for similar reasons.
Thanks, Mark.
| |