* Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 03:06:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > This adds a test module which will validate architecture page table helpers > > > and accessors regarding compliance with generic MM semantics expectations. > > > This will help various architectures in validating changes to the existing > > > page table helpers or addition of new ones. > > > > > > Test page table and memory pages creating it's entries at various level are > > > all allocated from system memory with required alignments. If memory pages > > > with required size and alignment could not be allocated, then all depending > > > individual tests are skipped. > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64_types.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64_types.h > > > index 52e5f5f2240d..b882792a3999 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64_types.h > > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64_types.h > > > @@ -40,6 +40,8 @@ static inline bool pgtable_l5_enabled(void) > > > #define pgtable_l5_enabled() 0 > > > #endif /* CONFIG_X86_5LEVEL */ > > > > > > +#define mm_p4d_folded(mm) (!pgtable_l5_enabled()) > > > + > > > extern unsigned int pgdir_shift; > > > extern unsigned int ptrs_per_p4d; > > > > Any deep reason this has to be a macro instead of proper C? > > It's a way to override the generic mm_p4d_folded(). It can be rewritten > as inline function + define. Something like: > > #define mm_p4d_folded mm_p4d_folded > static inline bool mm_p4d_folded(struct mm_struct *mm) > { > return !pgtable_l5_enabled(); > } > > But I don't see much reason to be more verbose here than needed. C type checking? Documentation? Yeah, I know it's just a one-liner, but the principle of the death by a thousand cuts applies here. BTW., any reason this must be in the low level pgtable_64_types.h type header, instead of one of the API level header files? Thanks, Ingo