On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:10:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:20:51AM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> > +static pgprot_t dev_protection_enable_get(struct dev_pagemap *pgmap,
> > pgprot_t prot)
> > +{
> > + if (pgmap->flags & PGMAP_PROT_ENABLED && dev_page_pkey != PKEY_INVALID)
> > {
> > + pgprotval_t val = pgprot_val(prot);
> > +
> > + static_branch_inc(&dev_protection_static_key);
> > + prot = __pgprot(val | _PAGE_PKEY(dev_page_pkey));
> > + }
> > + return prot;
> > +}
>
> Every other pgprot modifying function is called pgprot_*(), although I
> suppose we have the exceptions phys_mem_access_prot() and dma_pgprot().
Yea... this function kind of morphed. The issue is that this is also a 'get'
with a corresponding 'put'. So I'm at a loss for what makes sense between the
2 functions.
>
> How about we call this one devm_pgprot() ?
Dan Williams mentioned to me that the devm is not an appropriate prefix. Thus
the 'dev' prefix instead.
How about dev_pgprot_{get,put}()?
Ira
