On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 11:19 AM Igor Stoppa <igor.stoppa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 20/12/2018 20:49, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>
> > I think you're causing yourself more headaches by implementing this "op"
> > function.
>
> I probably misinterpreted the initial criticism on my first patchset,
> about duplication. Somehow, I'm still thinking to the endgame of having
> higher-level functions, like list management.
>
> > Here's some generic code:
>
> thank you, I have one question, below
>
> > void *wr_memcpy(void *dst, void *src, unsigned int len)
> > {
> > wr_state_t wr_state;
> > void *wr_poking_addr = __wr_addr(dst);
> >
> > local_irq_disable();
> > wr_enable(&wr_state);
> > __wr_memcpy(wr_poking_addr, src, len);
>
> Is __wraddr() invoked inside wm_memcpy() instead of being invoked
> privately within __wr_memcpy() because the code is generic, or is there
> some other reason?
>
> > wr_disable(&wr_state);
> > local_irq_enable();
> >
> > return dst;
> > }
> >
> > Now, x86 can define appropriate macros and functions to use the temporary_mm
> > functionality, and other architectures can do what makes sense to them.
> >
I suspect that most architectures will want to do this exactly like
x86, though, but sure, it could be restructured like this.
On x86, I *think* that __wr_memcpy() will want to special-case len ==
1, 2, 4, and (on 64-bit) 8 byte writes to keep them atomic. i'm
guessing this is the same on most or all architectures.
>
> --
> igor
