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

[Leonardo Bras]

On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 10:44 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> On 06/10/2019 08:57 PM, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 08:09 +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> > > > > +    /*
> > > > > +     * 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))
> > > > 
> > > > don't need an 'if A if B', can do 'if A && B'
> > > 
> > > Which will make it a very lengthy condition check.
> > 
> > Well, is there any problem line-breaking the if condition?
> > 
> > if (A && B && C &&
> >     D && E )
> > 
> > Also, if it's used only to decide the return value, maybe would be fine
> > to do somethink like that:
> > 
> > return (A && B && C &&
> >         D && E ); 
> 
> Got it. But as Dave and Matthew had pointed out earlier, the current x86
> implementation has better readability. Hence will probably stick with it.
> 
Sure, I agree with them. It's way more readable.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part