Re: [PATCH 04/31] x86/mm: Introduce pte_accessible()

[Linus Torvalds]

NAK NAK NAK.

On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 5:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> +#define __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_ACCESSIBLE
> +static inline int pte_accessible(pte_t a)

Stop doing this f*cking crazy ad-hoc "I have some other name
available" #defines.

Use the same name, for chissake! Don't make up new random names.

Just do

   #define pte_accessible pte_accessible

and then you can use

   #ifndef pte_accessible

to define the generic thing. Instead of having this INSANE "two
different names for the same f*cking thing" crap.

Stop it. Really.

Also, this:

> +#ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_ACCESSIBLE
> +#define pte_accessible(pte)            pte_present(pte)
> +#endif

looks unsafe and like a really bad idea.

You should probably do

  #ifndef pte_accessible
    #define pte_accessible(pte) ((void)(pte),1)
  #endif

because you have no idea if other architectures do

 (a) the same trick as x86 does for PROT_NONE (I can already tell you
from a quick grep that ia64, m32r, m68k and sh do it)
 (b) might not perhaps be caching non-present pte's anyway

So NAK on this whole patch. It's bad. It's ugly, it's wrong, and it's
actively buggy.

                Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/