Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752917AbdCHUFd (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:05:33 -0500
Received: from mail-ot0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]:34121 "EHLO
        mail-ot0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1753294AbdCHUFb (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 8 Mar 2017 15:05:31 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170308093555.yrhygjxx4mu562lp@pd.tnic>
References: <1488959258-4731-1-git-send-email-bhe@redhat.com>
 <20170308081812.GA12600@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com> <CACi5LpOjxiiCEvdOHGxHj_c+G-W3HKHr8EgOURpZ-cb5XqQnNQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20170308090955.GB6570@x1> <20170308093555.yrhygjxx4mu562lp@pd.tnic>
From: Bhupesh Sharma <bhsharma@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 01:35:00 +0530
Message-ID: <CACi5LpOXgCfysVdSnaCW=VPGp4VVJm9EKssvGK0T4wZ6ew7cvw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86/efi: Correct a tiny mistake in code comment
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org,
        thgarnie@google.com, Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
        x86@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1586
Lines: 47

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2017 at 05:09:55PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote:
>> Yes, it looks better. I can repost with this change. Thanks.
>
> No it doesn't:
>
> #define EFI_VA_START     ( -4 * (_AC(1, UL) << 30))
> #define EFI_VA_END       (-68 * (_AC(1, UL) << 30))
>
> That's -4G (the shift by 30) and -68G, respectively.
>
>> > #define EFI_VA_START    _AC(0xfffffffeffffffff, UL)
>> > #define EFI_VA_END    _AC(0xffffffef00000000, UL)
>
> That is something which I need to type into a calculator first.

Right, my point was that this -4G convention stands out, as compared
to the rest of the addressing convention used throughout
'arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_64_types.h'.

For e.g.:

#define __VMALLOC_BASE    _AC(0xffffc90000000000, UL)
#define __VMEMMAP_BASE    _AC(0xffffea0000000000, UL)
..
#define MODULES_END      _AC(0xffffffffff000000, UL)
..
and so on.

Also it seems inconsistent to the convention used in
'Documentation/x86/x86_64/mm.txt'

As you noted in one of your other comments in this thread, this causes
a confusion as to whether the EFI_VA_END and EFI_VA_START macros need
to be swapped or the comments elsewhere in the x86 code which use
these MACROS are incorrect.

However, I think it is more a matter of code readability and each of
these styles have their own advantages.

I would be happy to cook up a patch to have uniformity in the
addressing conventions used across pgtable_64_types.h (if it is
required at all), but it would be a different topic and not related to
this patch.

Regards,
Bhupesh