On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 10:06:50PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 11:10:53AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Fri, Jul 17, 2020 at 12:20:51AM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
+static pgprot_t dev_protection_enable_get(struct dev_pagemap *pgmap, pgprot_t prot) +{
- if (pgmap->flags & PGMAP_PROT_ENABLED && dev_page_pkey != PKEY_INVALID) {
pgprotval_t val = pgprot_val(prot);static_branch_inc(&dev_protection_static_key);prot = __pgprot(val | _PAGE_PKEY(dev_page_pkey));- }
- return prot;
+}
Every other pgprot modifying function is called pgprot_*(), although I suppose we have the exceptions phys_mem_access_prot() and dma_pgprot().
Yea... this function kind of morphed. The issue is that this is also a 'get' with a corresponding 'put'. So I'm at a loss for what makes sense between the 2 functions.
How about we call this one devm_pgprot() ?
Dan Williams mentioned to me that the devm is not an appropriate prefix. Thus the 'dev' prefix instead.
How about dev_pgprot_{get,put}()?
works for me, thanks!