Le 12/02/2018 à 00:34, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
On Sun, 11 Feb 2018 21:04:42 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.ku...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
On 02/11/2018 07:29 PM, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:54:27 +0100 (CET)
Christophe Leroy <christophe.le...@c-s.fr> wrote:
In preparation for the following patch which will fix an issue on
the 8xx by re-using the 'slices', this patch enhances the
'slices' implementation to support 32 bits CPUs.
On PPC32, the address space is limited to 4Gbytes, hence only the low
slices will be used.
This patch moves "slices" functions prototypes from page64.h to slice.h
The high slices use bitmaps. As bitmap functions are not prepared to
handling bitmaps of size 0, the bitmap_xxx() calls are wrapped into
slice_bitmap_xxx() functions which will void on PPC32
On this last point, I think it would be better to put these with the
existing slice bitmap functions in slice.c and just have a few #ifdefs
for SLICE_NUM_HIGH == 0.
We went back and forth with that. IMHO, we should avoid as much #ifdef
as possible across platforms. It helps to understand the platform
restrictions better as we have less and less access to these platforms.
The above change indicates that nohash 32 wants to use the slice code
and they have different restrictions. With that we now know that
book3s64 and nohash 32 are the two different configs using slice code.
I don't think it's the right place to put it. It's not platform dependent
so much as it just depends on whether or not you have 0 high slices as
a workaround for bitmap API not accepting 0 length.
Another platform that uses the slice code would just have to copy and
paste either the nop or the bitmap implementation depending if it has
high slices. So I don't think it's the right abstraction. And it
implies a bitmap operation but it very specifically only works for
struct slice_mask.high_slices bitmap, which is not clear. Better to
just work with struct slice_mask.
Some ifdefs inside .c code for small helper functions like this IMO isn't
really a big deal -- it's not worse than having it in headers. You just
want to avoid ifdef mess when looking at non-trivial logic.
static inline void slice_or_mask(struct slice_mask *dst, struct slice_mask *src)
dst->low_slices |= src->low_slices;
#if SLICE_NUM_HIGH > 0
bitmap_or(result, dst->high_slices, src->high_slices, SLICE_NUM_HIGH);
I think that's pretty fine. If you have a singular hatred for ifdef in .c,
then if() works just as well.
To be honest, I tend to agree with you. Therefore, after a few words
with Michael, v5 gets rid of those obscure wrappers to come back to the
initial (v1) approach which was to use 'if (SLICE_NUM_HIGH)'.
Behind the fact that it in my mind looks cleared in the code than using
slice_bitmap_xxx() wrappers, it also has the advantage of significantly
reducing the size of the patch, which is a must to be able to get it
applied on stable.