On 3/7/24 15:21, Yosry Ahmed wrote: >>> The "set_" naming bugs me in both of the sites that get modified here. >>> I'd be with a new name that fits better, if we can think of one. >> Is it because it's not clear we are updating cpu_tlbstate (in which case >> I think update_cpu_tlbstate_lam() is an improvement), or is it because >> the function returns a value now? That's part of it. >> If the latter we can put "return" in the name somewhere, or keep >> the function void and pass in an output parameter. No, adding a "_return" won't make it better. > Or we can avoid returning a value from the helper and avoid passing an > mm. The callers would be more verbose, they'll have to call > mm_lam_cr3_mask() and mm_untag_mask() and pass the results into the > helper (set_tlbstate_lam_mode() or update_cpu_tlbstate_lam()). Another > advantage of this is that we can move the READ_ONCE to > switch_mm_irqs_off() and keep the comment here. One thing I don't like about set_tlbstate_lam_mode() is that it's not obvious that it's writing to "cpu_tlbstate" and its right smack in the middle of a bunch of other writers to the same thing. But I'm also not sure that open-coding it at its three call sites makes things better overall. I honestly don't have any brilliant suggestions.
