On 07/13/2017 01:03 AM, Ram Pai wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:13:56AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 07/05/2017 02:22 PM, Ram Pai wrote:
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS
>>> +void arch_show_smap(struct seq_file *m, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>>> +{
>>> + seq_printf(m, "ProtectionKey: %8u\n", vma_pkey(vma));
>>> +}
>>> +#endif /* CONFIG_PPC64_MEMORY_PROTECTION_KEYS */
>>
>> This seems like kinda silly unnecessary duplication. Could we just put
>> this in the fs/proc/ code and #ifdef it on ARCH_HAS_PKEYS?
>
> Well x86 predicates it based on availability of X86_FEATURE_OSPKE.
>
> powerpc doesn't need that check or any similar check. So trying to
> generalize the code does not save much IMHO.
I know all your hardware doesn't support it. :)
So, for instance, if you are running on a new POWER9 with radix page
tables, you will just always output "ProtectionKey: 0" in every VMA,
regardless?
> maybe have a seperate inline function that does
> seq_printf(m, "ProtectionKey: %8u\n", vma_pkey(vma));
> and is called from x86 and powerpc's arch_show_smap()?
> At least will keep the string format captured in
> one single place.
Now that we have two architectures, is there a strong reason we can't
just have an arch_pkeys_enabled(), and stick the seq_printf() back in
generic code?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
