On Fri, 18 Jan 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> */
> +#ifdef __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_SPECIAL
> +# define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 1
> +#else
> +# define HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL 0
> +#endif
> struct page *vm_normal_page(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
> pte_t pte)
> {
> - unsigned long pfn = pte_pfn(pte);
> + unsigned long pfn;
> +
> + if (HAVE_PTE_SPECIAL) {
I really don't think this is *any* different from "#ifdefs in code".
#ifdef's in code is not about syntax, it's about abstraction. This is
still the exact same thing as having an #ifdef around it, and in many ways
it is *worse*, because now it's just made to look somewhat different with
a particularly ugly #ifdef.
IOW, this didn't abstract the issue away, it just massaged it to look
different.
I suspect that the nicest abstraction would be to simply make the whole
function be a per-architecture thing. Not exposing a "pte_special()" bit
at all, but instead having the interface simply be:
- create special entries:
pte_t pte_mkspecial(pte_t pte)
- check if an entry is special:
struct page *vm_normal_page(vma, addr, pte)
and now it's not while the naming is a bit odd (for historical reasons),
at least it is properly *abstracted* and you don't have any #ifdef's in
code (and we'd probably need to extend that abstraction then for the
"locklessly look up page" case eventually).
[ To make it slightly more regular, we could make "pte_mkspecial()" take
the vma/addr thing too, even though it would never really use it except
to perhaps have a VM_BUG_ON() that it only happens within XIP/PFNMAP
vma's.
The "pte_mkspecial()" definitely has more to to with "vm_normal_page()"
than with the other "pte_mkxyzzy()" functions, so it really might make
sense to instead make the thing
void set_special_page(vma, addr, pte_t *, pfn, pgprot)
because it is never acceptable to do "pte_mkspecial()" on any existent
PTE *anyway*, so we might as well make the interface reflect that: it's
not that you make a pte "special", it's that you insert a special page
into the VM.
So the operation really conceptually has more to do with "set_pte()"
than with "pte_mkxxx()", no? ]
Then, just have a library version of the long form, and make architectures
that don't support it just use that (just so that you don't have to
duplicate that silly thing). So an architecture that support special page
flags would do somethiing like
#define set_special_page(vma,addr,ptep,pfn,prot) \
set_pte_at(vma, addr, ptep, mk_special_pte(pfn,prot))
#define vm_normal_page(vma,addr,pte)
(pte_special(pte) ? NULL : pte_page(pte))
and other architectures would just do
#define set_special_page(vma,addr,ptep,pfn,prot) \
set_pte_at(vma, addr, ptep, mk_pte(pfn,prot))
#define vm_normal_page(vma,addr,pte) \
generic_vm_normal_page(vma,addr,pte)
or something.
THAT is what I mean by "no #ifdef's in code" - that the selection is done
at a higher level, the same way we have good interfaces with clear
*conceptual* meaning for all the other PTE accessing stuff, rather than
have conditionals in the architecture-independent code.
It's not about syntax - it's about having good conceptual abstractions.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
