On 13/06/2023 03:16, Muchun Song wrote: > > >> On Jun 12, 2023, at 23:15, Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> (Including wider audience this time since changes touch a fair few subsystems) >> >> This is the second half of v3 of a series to improve the encapsulation of pte >> entries by disallowing non-arch code from directly dereferencing pte_t pointers. >> Based on earlier feedback, I split the series in 2; the first part, fixes for >> existing bugs, was already posted at [3] and merged into mm-stable. This second >> part contains the conversion from direct dereferences to instead use >> ptep_get()/ptep_get_lockless(). >> >> See the v1 cover letter at [1] for rationale for this work. >> >> Based on feedback at v2, I've removed the new ptep_deref() helper I originally >> added, and am now using the existing ptep_get() and ptep_get_lockless() helpers. > > When I first saw the name of ptep_get()/ptep_get_lockless(), I thought > the pte seems like to be protected by the refcount mechanism (Why I have > this though? Because Qi Zheng has proposed a approach to free pte page tables > by using the refcount mechanism [1]). And your proposed name of ptep_deref() > is intuitive for me, so I have another thought, should we rename ptep_get() > to ptep_deref()? Just a thought from me, I'd like to hear if others object. I see your point, but I think any renaming exercise should be discussed and applied in the context of a separate patch series, given that ptep_get() and ptep_get_lockless() already exist in the code base. This would be a much bigger job, since it would need to cover all the arch code too. > > Thanks. > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20211110105428.32458-7-zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
