Re: [PATCH 1/2] arm64/mm: Allow __create_pgd_mapping() to propagate pgtable_alloc() errors
From: Kevin Brodsky
Date: Fri Aug 15 2025 - 08:12:25 EST
On 15/08/2025 09:30, Dev Jain wrote:
>
> On 13/08/25 8:26 pm, Chaitanya S Prakash wrote:
>> [-------snip-------------]
>> -static void __create_pgd_mapping(pgd_t *pgdir, phys_addr_t phys,
>> +static int __create_pgd_mapping(pgd_t *pgdir, phys_addr_t phys,
>> unsigned long virt, phys_addr_t size,
>> pgprot_t prot,
>> phys_addr_t (*pgtable_alloc)(enum pgtable_type),
>> int flags)
>> {
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> mutex_lock(&fixmap_lock);
>> - __create_pgd_mapping_locked(pgdir, phys, virt, size, prot,
>> - pgtable_alloc, flags);
>> + ret = __create_pgd_mapping_locked(pgdir, phys, virt, size, prot,
>> + pgtable_alloc, flags);
>> mutex_unlock(&fixmap_lock);
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void ___create_pgd_mapping(pgd_t *pgdir, phys_addr_t phys,
>> + unsigned long virt, phys_addr_t size,
>> + pgprot_t prot,
>> + phys_addr_t (*pgtable_alloc)(enum pgtable_type),
>> + int flags)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> +
>> + ret = __create_pgd_mapping(pgdir, phys, virt, size, prot,
>> pgtable_alloc,
>> + flags);
>> + BUG_ON(ret);
>> }
>
> A triple underscore calling a double underscore isn't natural to
> reason about.
Also not the most readable (easy to confuse the two).
> Since this is the function which must succeed, how does
> "must_create_pgd_mapping()"
> sound?
"must" isn't a prefix that is commonly used in that sense, not sure this
is very clear.
Another idea that comes to mind is early_create_pgd_mapping() - the
BUG_ON() being justified by the fact that early errors are not recoverable.
On a related note, it would be possible to return an error from
create_pgd_mapping() and create_mapping_noalloc() as their callers
already have error paths. That would be a bit cleaner but I don't know
if it's worth the hassle.
- Kevin