Message-ID: <1513703142.1234.53.camel@perches.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Make follow_pte_pmd an inline
From: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2017 09:05:42 -0800
In-Reply-To: <20171219165823.24243-1-willy@infradead.org>
References: <20171219165823.24243-1-willy@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1175
Lines: 33

On Tue, 2017-12-19 at 08:58 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@microsoft.com>
> 
> The one user of follow_pte_pmd (dax) emits a sparse warning because
> it doesn't know that follow_pte_pmd conditionally returns with the
> pte/pmd locked.  The required annotation is already there; it's just
> in the wrong file.
[]
> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
[]
> @@ -1324,6 +1324,19 @@ int follow_phys(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>  int generic_access_phys(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
>  			void *buf, int len, int write);
>  
> +static inline int follow_pte_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
> +			     unsigned long *start, unsigned long *end,
> +			     pte_t **ptepp, pmd_t **pmdpp, spinlock_t **ptlp)
> +{
> +	int res;
> +
> +	/* (void) is needed to make gcc happy */
> +	(void) __cond_lock(*ptlp,
> +			   !(res = __follow_pte_pmd(mm, address, start, end,
> +						    ptepp, pmdpp, ptlp)));

This seems obscure and difficult to read.  Perhaps:

	res = __follow_pte_pmd(mm, address, start, end, ptepp, pmdpp, ptlp);
	(void)__cond_lock(*ptlp, !res);

> +	return res;
> +}