Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: remove uaccess_ttbr0 asm macros from cache functions

[Pavel Tatashin]

Hi Mark,

Thank you for reviewing this work.

> A commit message should provide rationale, rather than just a
> description of the patch. Something like:
>
> | We currently duplicate the logic to enable/disable uaccess via TTBR0,
> | with C functions and assembly macros. This is a maintenenace burden
> | and is liable to lead to subtle bugs, so let's get rid of the assembly
> | macros, and always use the C functions. This requires refactoring
> | some assembly functions to have a C wrapper.

Thank you for suggestion, I will fix my commit log.
>
> [...]
>
> > +static inline int invalidate_icache_range(unsigned long start,
> > +                                       unsigned long end)
> > +{
> > +     int rv;
> > +#if ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC
> > +     rv = arch_invalidate_icache_range(start, end);
> > +#else
> > +     uaccess_ttbr0_enable();
> > +     rv = arch_invalidate_icache_range(start, end);
> > +     uaccess_ttbr0_disable();
> > +#endif
> > +     return rv;
> > +}
>
> This ifdeffery is not the same as an alternative_if, and even if it were
> the ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC behaviour is not the same as the existing
> assembly.
>
> This should be:
>
> static inline int invalidate_icache_range(unsigned long start,
>                                           unsigned long end)
> {
>         int ret;
>
>         if (cpus_have_const_cap(ARM64_HAS_CACHE_DIC)) {
>                 isb();
>                 return 0;
>         }
>
>         uaccess_ttbr0_enable();
>         ret = arch_invalidate_icache_range(start, end);
>         uaccess_ttbr0_disable();
>
>         return ret;
> }

I will fix it, thanks.

>
> The 'arch_' prefix should probably be 'asm_' (or have an '_asm' suffix),
> since this is entirely local to the arch code, and even then should only
> be called from the C wrappers.

Sure, I can change it to asm_*, I was using arch_* to be consistent
with __arch_copy_from_user() and friends.

Thank you,
Pasha