Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 18 Feb 2016 11:19:42 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v11 3/4] x86, mce: Add __mcsafe_copy() |
| |
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 09:21:07AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > * Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > Make use of the EXTABLE_FAULT exception table entries. This routine > > > returns a structure to indicate the result of the copy: > > > > So the series looks good to me, but I have some (mostly readability) comments that > > went beyond what I usually fix up manually: > > > > > struct mcsafe_ret { > > > u64 trapnr; > > > u64 remain; > > > }; > > > > > +struct mcsafe_ret { > > > + u64 trapnr; > > > + u64 remain; > > > +}; > > > > Yeah, so please change this to something like: > > > > struct mcsafe_ret { > > u64 trap_nr; > > u64 bytes_left; > > }; > > > > this makes it crystal clear what the fields are about and what their unit is. > > Readability is king and modern consoles are wide enough, no need to abbreviate > > excessively. > > I prefer to use my modern console width to display multiple columns of > text, instead of wasting it to display mostly whitespace. Therefore I > still very much prefer ~80 char wide code.
This naming won't hurt the col80 limit.
> > Also, I'd suggest we postfix the new mcsafe functions with '_mcsafe', not > > prefix them. Special properties of memcpy routines are usually postfixes - > > such as _nocache(), _toio(), etc. > > I think the whole notion of mcsafe here is 'wrong'. This copy variant simply > reports the kind of trap that happened (#PF or #MC) and could arguably be > extended to include more types if the hardware were to generate more.
What would a better name be? memcpy_ret() or so?
Thanks,
Ingo
| |