On 8/10/21 6:50 PM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 12:32:37PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> All instances here could just directly test against CONFIG_ARM64_XXK_PAGES >> instead of evaluating via PAGE_SHIFT or PAGE_SIZE. With this change, there >> will be no such usage left. >> >> Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm64/kvm/hyp/pgtable.c | 6 +++--- >> arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > Why is this better? There are two improvements here. 1. Avoids using hard coded numerical shift values to determine the page size e.g PAGE_SHIFT = 16 for 64K 2. There are already instances of IS_ENABLED() construct checking for the page size. After this change there will be just a single method to test page size , rather than checking for either config, PAGE_SHIFT or PAGE_SIZE etc through out arm64. This change helps in that unification around IS_ENABLED(). There is another patch which drops remaining usage for PAGE_SIZE as well. https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-arm-kernel/patch/1628569782-30213-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx/ _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
