Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] x86 : omit duplicate processing at pte_pgprot() | Date | Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:01:22 +0900 (JST) | From | ohyama_sec@ariel-ne ... |
| |
Thank you for your genial response, and I'm sorry that I neglected to read Documentation/SubmittingPatches carefully. And I understood DCO.
>> I suggest following PATCH that omit duplicate processing of mask. >> >> pte_pgprot() macro [arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h] call pte_flags() [arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable_types.h] that return value is masked by PTE_FLAGS_MASK in pte_flags() function, and this macro also masks the returned value by PTE_FLAGS_MASK. >> > >It probably won't make any difference in practice, because gcc will do a >common subexpression elimination for the "& PTE_FLAGS_MASK" between the >inline function and its caller. But it does tidy things up a bit. > >> I guess that we don't have to do the mask processing at pte_pgprot() macro because it has already been masked at pte_flags(). >> So, how about the following PATCH ? >> >> <Hiroyasu OHYAMA> >> > >Please add a proper Signed-off-by: line. > >Acked-by: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org> > >J
Signed-off-by : Hiroyasu OHYAMA <hiroyasu.ohyama@gmail.com>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h >> index 3cc06e3..a0b454c 100644 >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h >> @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static inline pgprot_t pgprot_modify(pgprot_t oldprot, pgprot_t newprot) >> return __pgprot(preservebits | addbits); >> } >> >> -#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_flags(x) & PTE_FLAGS_MASK) >> +#define pte_pgprot(x) __pgprot(pte_flags(x)) >> >> #define canon_pgprot(p) __pgprot(massage_pgprot(p)) >> -- >> 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/ >> >> >
| |