Re: [RFC V3] mm: Generalize and rename notify_page_fault() as kprobe_page_fault()

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 06/07/2019 08:36 PM, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/7/19 3:34 AM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> +static nokprobe_inline bool kprobe_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
>> +					      unsigned int trap)
>> +{
>> +	int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed
>> +	 * to call kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible.
>> +	 */
>> +	if (kprobes_built_in() && !preemptible() && !user_mode(regs)) {
>> +		if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap))
>> +			ret = 1;
>> +	}
>> +	return ret;
>> +}
> 
> Nits: Other that taking the nice, readable, x86 one and globbing it onto
> a single line, looks OK to me.  It does seem a _bit_ silly to go to the
> trouble of converting to 'bool' and then using 0/1 and an 'int'
> internally instead of true/false and a bool, though.  It's also not a

Changing to 'bool'...

> horrible thing to add a single line comment to this sucker to say:
> 
> /* returns true if kprobes handled the fault */
> 

Picking this in-code comment.

> In any case, and even if you don't clean any of this up:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 

Thanks !