On 17/09/2024 11:20, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 17.09.24 09:31, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> This changes platform's pmd_val() to access the pmd_t element directly like
>> other architectures rather than current pointer address based dereferencing
>> that prevents transition into pmdp_get().
>>
>> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Guo Ren <guoren@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: linux-m68k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/m68k/include/asm/page.h | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/m68k/include/asm/page.h b/arch/m68k/include/asm/page.h
>> index 8cfb84b49975..be3f2c2a656c 100644
>> --- a/arch/m68k/include/asm/page.h
>> +++ b/arch/m68k/include/asm/page.h
>> @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@
>> */
>> #if !defined(CONFIG_MMU) || CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS == 3
>> typedef struct { unsigned long pmd; } pmd_t;
>> -#define pmd_val(x) ((&x)->pmd)
>> +#define pmd_val(x) ((x).pmd)
>> #define __pmd(x) ((pmd_t) { (x) } )
>> #endif
>>
>
> Trying to understand what's happening here, I stumbled over
>
> commit ef22d8abd876e805b604e8f655127de2beee2869
> Author: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri Jan 31 13:45:36 2020 +0100
>
> m68k: mm: Restructure Motorola MMU page-table layout
> The Motorola 68xxx MMUs, 040 (and later) have a fixed 7,7,{5,6}
> page-table setup, where the last depends on the page-size selected (8k
> vs 4k resp.), and head.S selects 4K pages. For 030 (and earlier) we
> explicitly program 7,7,6 and 4K pages in %tc.
> However, the current code implements this mightily weird. What it does
> is group 16 of those (6 bit) pte tables into one 4k page to not waste
> space. The down-side is that that forces pmd_t to be a 16-tuple
> pointing to consecutive pte tables.
> This breaks the generic code which assumes READ_ONCE(*pmd) will be
> word sized.
>
> Where we did
>
> #if !defined(CONFIG_MMU) || CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS == 3
> -typedef struct { unsigned long pmd[16]; } pmd_t;
> -#define pmd_val(x) ((&x)->pmd[0])
> -#define __pmd(x) ((pmd_t) { { (x) }, })
> +typedef struct { unsigned long pmd; } pmd_t;
> +#define pmd_val(x) ((&x)->pmd)
> +#define __pmd(x) ((pmd_t) { (x) } )
> #endif
>
> So I assume this should be fine
I think you're implying that taking the address then using arrow operator was
needed when pmd was an array? I don't really understand that if so? Surely:
((x).pmd[0])
would have worked too? I traced back further, and a version of that macro exists
with the "address of" and arrow operator since the beginning of (git) time.
>
> Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
