Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 7 Dec 2021 10:50:36 +0000 | From | Catalin Marinas <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: Use asid2idx() and asid feature macro for cleanup |
| |
On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 10:21:26AM +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote: > On 2021/12/7 0:23, Catalin Marinas wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2021 at 08:27:23PM +0800, Yunfeng Ye wrote: > >> @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ static u64 new_context(struct mm_struct *mm) > >> u64 generation = atomic64_read(&asid_generation); > >> > >> if (asid != 0) { > >> - u64 newasid = generation | (asid & ~ASID_MASK); > >> + u64 newasid = generation | asid2idx(asid); > >> > >> /* > >> * If our current ASID was active during a rollover, we > >> @@ -306,7 +306,7 @@ unsigned long arm64_mm_context_get(struct mm_struct *mm) > >> out_unlock: > >> raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&cpu_asid_lock, flags); > >> > >> - asid &= ~ASID_MASK; > >> + asid = asid2idx(asid); > > > > While functionally the code is the same, I don't think this was the > > intention of asid2idx(). It's meant to provide an index into asid_map, > > while the ASID_MASK lines isolate the asid number and add a new > > generation to it. > > The commit 0c8ea531b774 ("arm64: mm: Allocate ASIDs in pairs") introduce the > asid2idx and idx2asid macro, but these macros is not really useful after the > commit f88f42f853a8 ("arm64: context: Free up kernel ASIDs if KPTI is not in use"). > > I think "(asid & ~ASID_MASK)" can be instead by a macro, it is the same code with > asid2idx(). Can it be renamed? (eg, ctxid2asid)
Yes, that would work.
-- Catalin
| |