Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754451AbZAGJeP (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:34:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1757199AbZAGJd5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:33:57 -0500 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:59652 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753329AbZAGJd4 (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:33:56 -0500 Message-ID: <496476D0.5040607@zytor.com> Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:33:04 -0800 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hiroshi Shimamoto CC: Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC -tip 0/4] x86: reduce fixup of uaccess References: <4962CAAE.6090300@ct.jp.nec.com> In-Reply-To: <4962CAAE.6090300@ct.jp.nec.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1735 Lines: 49 Hiroshi Shimamoto wrote: > This is my second try to reduce fixup code size for exceptions of uaccess. > > This patch series reduces fixup code for exceptions of uaccess in signal. > > I gave up to make direct jump to end of function when an exception occurs. > However, I thought fixup code could be reduced. The concept is that to add > uaccess_err in thread_info and set it to -EFAULT on exception, finally check > this value on the last of function. > > Is this good to reduce code size? > Hello Hiroshi, The patches look technically really nice. I have a couple of stylistic comments, though, which I'd like yours and others' comments on. This introduces a new blocking construct, and it's not immediately obvious in the source code. I think introducing a technically redundant set of braces and dropping the parens from the try construct and the redundant pointer might look better: get_user_try { /* do stuff */ } get_user_catch(err); This makes it, in my opinion, much clearer that it is a new bracing construct, and it also eliminates the need to form a pointer to "err" (even though the compiler doesn't actually do so, it looks like it does to the programmer.) Also, I don't think we need double underscores for the wrapping construct, since the get_user/__get_user (check/nocheck) etc. distinction doesn't directly apply there. What do you think? -hpa -- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/