On 2020-02-29 3:33 p.m., Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:25 AM Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> For use in the 32bit arch_add_memory() to set the pgprot type of the >> memory to add. >> >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx >> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/x86/include/asm/set_memory.h | 1 + >> arch/x86/mm/pat/set_memory.c | 7 +++++++ >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/set_memory.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/set_memory.h >> index 64c3dce374e5..0aca959cf9a4 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/set_memory.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/set_memory.h >> @@ -34,6 +34,7 @@ >> * The caller is required to take care of these. >> */ >> >> +int _set_memory_prot(unsigned long addr, int numpages, pgprot_t prot); > > I wonder if this should be separated from the naming convention of the > other routines because this is only an internal helper for code paths > where the prot was established by an upper layer. For example, I > expect that the kernel does not want new usages to make the mistake of > calling: > > _set_memory_prot(..., pgprot_writecombine(pgprot)) > > ...instead of > > _set_memory_wc() > > I'm thinking just a double underscore rename (__set_memory_prot) and a > kerneldoc comment for that pointing people to use the direct > _set_memory_<cachemode> helpers. Thanks! Will do. Note, though, that even _set_memory_wc() is an internal x86-specific function. But the extra comment and underscore still make sense. > With that you can add: > > Reviewed-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> >
