Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 27 Aug 2022 18:43:06 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/2] riscv: uaccess: rename __get/put_user_nocheck to __get/put_mem_nocheck | From | Tong Tiangen <> |
| |
在 2022/8/26 17:30, Arnd Bergmann 写道: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2022 at 5:20 AM Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com> wrote: >> >> Current, The helpers __get/put_user_nocheck() is used by get/put_user() and >> __get/put_kernel_nofault(), which is not always uaccess, so the name with >> *user* is not appropriate. >> >> Also rename xxx_user_xxx to xxx_mem_xx on the call path of >> __get/put_user_nocheck() >> >> Only refactor code without any functional changes. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@huawei.com> > > I would prefer this not being done, it just makes riscv diverge from the > code on other architectures. While the new name does make more sense, > it ends up making it harder to refactor this across architectures in the end. > > There are two important cleanups that I would like to see done in > asm/uaccess.h across architectures: > > - generalize the __get_user()/__put_user()/__get_kernel_nofault()/ > __put_kernel_nofault() wrappers to the point that architectures do not > need to worry about the variable type stuff but instead just provide > trivial fixed-length helpers of some sort > > - change the calling conventions in a way that allows the use of the > asm-goto-with-output method for better object code on modern > compilers. > > The x86 version already has most of this, with their > __get_user_size() macro supporting both the asm-goto label > and the error code assignment, so the generalized code should > probably be based on that approach.
I am very interested in the implementation of X86. I need to investigate and consider a cross architecture implementation. However, I understand that the modification of the current patch has little to do with the two points mentioned above. We can optimize the code step by step.
Thanks, Tong.
> > Arnd > > .
| |