Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-17375-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
From: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Teo Couprie Diaz <teo.coupriediaz@arm.com>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Guo Hui <guohui@uniontech.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/1] arm64: add compile-time test into is_compat_task()
Date: Thu,  4 Jan 2024 22:16:39 -0300
Message-ID: <ZZdYd_VADgVyITH1@LeoBras>
In-Reply-To: <8412ce8a-7016-4f65-99d3-ce472a75d8cd@app.fastmail.com>
References: <20240104192433.109983-2-leobras@redhat.com> <8412ce8a-7016-4f65-99d3-ce472a75d8cd@app.fastmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Thu, Jan 04, 2024 at 09:43:56PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 4, 2024, at 20:24, Leonardo Bras wrote:
> > Currently some parts of the codebase will test for CONFIG_COMPAT before
> > testing is_compat_task(), probably in order to avoid a run-time test into
> > the task structure, while other parts of codebase will just test even when
> > the option is not compiled in.
> >
> > Since is_compat_task() is an inlined function, it would be helpful to add a
> > !CONFIG_COMPAT version of the helper, allowing compile-time optimization.
> >
> > With this, the compiler is able to understand in build-time that
> > is_compat_task() will always return 0, and optimize-out some of the extra
> > code introduced by the option.
> >
> > This allows optimizing-out code when the option is not selected, and
> > otherwise removing a lot #ifdefs that were introduced, making the code
> > more clean.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Leonardo Bras <leobras@redhat.com>
> 
> This looks like a useful cleanup to me, 


Hello Arnd, thanks for reviewing! 


> with one change:
> 
> > ---
> >  arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h | 5 +++++
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/ptrace.c      | 6 ++----
> >  arch/arm64/kernel/syscall.c     | 5 +----
> >  3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
> > index ae904a1ad5293..3cc61cbbb9062 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/compat.h
> > @@ -100,6 +100,11 @@ long compat_arm_syscall(struct pt_regs *regs, int scno);
> > 
> >  #else /* !CONFIG_COMPAT */
> > 
> > +static inline int is_compat_task(void)
> > +{
> > +	return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> I think this bit is not even needed as long as users
> include linux/compat.h rather than asm/compat.h, as there
> is already a macro definition in the common file:
> 
>  #define is_compat_task() (0)
> 

Oh, I was unaware of this macro. Thanks for pointing it out!

I just checked every use of is_compat_task() in the codebase for (arch == 
arm64 && non-arch code), and it seems like the file will either include 
linux/compat.h or another header which includes linux/compat.h. 

So it's safe to assume the macro will be available for every user.

I will send a v1 soon.

Thanks!
Leo