On Jan 27, 2021, at 01:38, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 01:23:35AM +0000, Bae, Chang Seok wrote: >> Okay. I will prepare a separate cleanup patch that can be applied at the end >> of the series. Will post the change in this thread at first. > > No, this is not how this works. Imagine you pile up a patch at the end > for each review feedback you've gotten. No, this will be an insane churn > and an unreviewable mess. > > What you do is you rework your patches like everyone else. Yeah, it makes sense. I will post v4. > Also, thinking about this more, I'm wondering if all those > xstate-related attributes shouldn't be part of struct fpu instead of > being scattered around like that. > > That thing - struct fpu * - gets passed in everywhere anyway so all that > min_size, max_size, ->xstate_ptr and whatever, looks like it wants to be > part of struct fpu. Then maybe you won't need the accessors... Well, min_size and max_size are not task-specific. So, it will be wasteful to include in struct fpu. I will follow your suggestion to add new helpers to access the size values, instead of exporting them. >>>> @@ -627,13 +627,18 @@ static void check_xstate_against_struct(int nr) >>>> */ >>> >>> <-- There's a comment over this function that might need adjustment. >> >> Do you mean an empty line? (Just want to clarify.) > > No, I mean this comment: > > * Dynamic XSAVE features allocate their own buffers and are not > * covered by these checks. Only the size of the buffer for task->fpu > * is checked here. > > That probably needs adjusting as you do set min and max size here now > for the dynamic buffer. Oh, I see. Thank you. >> Agreed. I will prepare a patch. At least will post the diff here. > > You can send it separately from this patchset, ontop of current > tip/master, so that I can take it now. Posted, [1]. After all, the proposal is to remove the helper. Thanks, Chang [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210203024052.15789-1-chang.seok.bae@xxxxxxxxx/
