Re: [PATCH v4 4/4] mm/gup: clean up codes in fault_in_xxx() functions

[David Hildenbrand]

On 11.04.25 13:15, Baoquan He wrote:
> On 04/11/25 at 10:54am, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 10.04.25 05:57, Baoquan He wrote:
> > > The code style in fault_in_readable() and fault_in_writable() is a
> > > little inconsistent with fault_in_safe_writeable(). In fault_in_readable()
> > > and fault_in_writable(), it uses 'uaddr' passed in as loop cursor. While
> > > in fault_in_safe_writeable(), local variable 'start' is used as loop
> > > cursor. This may mislead people when reading code or making change in
> > > these codes.
> > >
> > > Here define explicit loop cursor and use for loop to simplify codes in
> > > these three functions. These cleanup can make them be consistent in
> > > code style and improve readability.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Baoquan He <bhe@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >    mm/gup.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------
> > >    1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > > index 77a5bc622567..a76bd7e90a71 100644
> > > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > > @@ -2113,28 +2113,24 @@ static long __get_user_pages_locked(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start,
> > >     */
> > >    size_t fault_in_writeable(char __user *uaddr, size_t size)
> > >    {
> > > -	char __user *start = uaddr, *end;
> > > +	const unsigned long start = (unsigned long)uaddr;
> > > +	const unsigned long end = start + size;
> > > +	unsigned long cur = start;
> >
> > I would initialize cur in the for loop header, makes the loop easier to
> > read.
>
> Both is fine to me. It's to satisfy checkpatch.sh which complains about
> exceeding 80 char in the line.

Did checkpatch.sh actually complain? You might be happy to learn that 
the new limit is 100. :)

[...]

> > /* Stop once we overflow to 0. */
> > end = PAGE_ALIGN(end)
> > if (start < end)
> > 	end = 0;
> >
> > for (cur = start; cur != end; cur = PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(cur + PAGE_SIZE))
> > 	unsafe_put_user(0, (char __user *)cur, out);
> >
> > Essentially, removing the "cur" check from the loop condition. Not sure if
> > that is better.
>
> The current code is simpler. Your now saying may save the CPU execution
> instructions a little bit. Both is fine to me.
>
> I don't have strong preference, I can make v4 to address these concerns
> if decided. Thanks for careful checking.

Whatever you prefer!

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb