Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 12:21:22AM +1000, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:57:59PM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>> >> +#if defined(CONFIG_PPC_8xx) && defined(CONFIG_PPC_16K_PAGES)
>> >> +#define __HAVE_ARCH_PTEP_GET
>> >> +static inline pte_t ptep_get(pte_t *ptep)
>> >> +{
>> >> + pte_t pte = {READ_ONCE(ptep->pte), 0, 0, 0};
>> >> +
>> >> + return pte;
>> >> +}
>> >> +#endif
>> >
>> > Would it make sense to have a comment with this magic? The casual reader
>> > might wonder WTH just happened when he stumbles on this :-)
>>
>> I tried writing a helpful comment but it's too late for my brain to form
>> sensible sentences.
>>
>> Christophe can you send a follow-up with a comment explaining it? In
>> particular the zero entries stand out, it's kind of subtle that those
>> entries are only populated with the right value when we write to the
>> page table.
>
> static inline pte_t ptep_get(pte_t *ptep)
> {
> unsigned long val = READ_ONCE(ptep->pte);
> /* 16K pages have 4 identical value 4K entries */
> pte_t pte = {val, val, val, val);
> return pte;
> }
>
> Maybe something like that?
I think val wants to be pte_basic_t, but otherwise yeah I like that much
better.
cheers
