Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/pkeys: Standardize on u8 for pkey type

[Ira Weiny]

On Tue, Mar 15, 2022 at 09:03:26AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 3/15/22 08:53, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2022 at 04:49:12PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 3/10/22 16:57, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>> The number of pkeys supported on x86 and powerpc are much smaller than a
> >>> u16 value can hold.  It is desirable to standardize on the type for
> >>> pkeys.  powerpc currently supports the most pkeys at 32.  u8 is plenty
> >>> large for that.
> >>>
> >>> Standardize on the pkey types by changing u16 to u8.
> >>
> >> How widely was this intended to "standardize" things?  Looks like it may
> >> have missed a few spots.
> > 
> > Sorry I think the commit message is misleading you.  The justification of u8 as
> > the proper type is that no arch has a need for more than 255 pkeys.
> > 
> > This specific patch was intended to only change x86.  Per that goal I don't see
> > any other places in x86 which uses u16 after this patch.
> > 
> > $ git grep u16 arch/x86 | grep key
> > arch/x86/events/intel/uncore_discovery.c:	const u16 *type_id = key;
> > arch/x86/include/asm/intel_pconfig.h:	u16 keyid;
> > arch/x86/include/asm/mmu.h:	u16 pkey_allocation_map;
> > arch/x86/include/asm/pkeys.h:	u16 all_pkeys_mask = ((1U << arch_max_pkey()) - 1);
> 
> I was also looking at the generic mm code.

Ah yea that needs to be sorted out too I think.

> 
> >> Also if we're worried about the type needing to changY or with the wrong
> >> type being used, I guess we could just to a pkey_t typedef.
> > 
> > I'm not 'worried' about it.  But I do think it makes the code cleaner and more
> > self documenting.
> 
> Yeah, consistency is good.  Do you mind taking a look at how a pkey_t
> would look, and also seeing how much core mm code should use it?

I don't mind at all.

Ira