From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>, linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] kasan: support instrumented bitops combined with generic bitops Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:36:23 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CANpmjNO5MgoBGBxv5iTDCegF-Saxg7dxeiTBqQRKdeUf1F5wXQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87r21lef1k.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:04, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > > Marco Elver <elver@google.com> writes: > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 08:42, Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net> wrote: > >> > >> > But the docs do seem to indicate that it's atomic (for whatever that > >> > means for a single read operation?), so you are right, it should live in > >> > instrumented-atomic.h. > >> > >> Actually, on further inspection, test_bit has lived in > >> bitops/non-atomic.h since it was added in 4117b02132d1 ("[PATCH] bitops: > >> generic __{,test_and_}{set,clear,change}_bit() and test_bit()") > >> > >> So to match that, the wrapper should live in instrumented-non-atomic.h > >> too. > >> > >> If test_bit should move, that would need to be a different patch. But I > >> don't really know if it makes too much sense to stress about a read > >> operation, as opposed to a read/modify/write... > > > > That's fair enough. I suppose this can stay where it is because it's > > not hurting anyone per-se, but the only bad thing about it is that > > kernel-api documentation will present test_bit() in non-atomic > > operations. > > I only just noticed this thread as I was about to send a pull request > for these two commits. > > I think I agree that test_bit() shouldn't move (yet), but I dislike that > the documentation ends up being confusing due to this patch. > > So I'm inclined to append or squash in the patch below, which removes > the new headers from the documentation. The end result is the docs look > more or less the same, just the ordering of some of the functions > changes. But we don't end up with test_bit() under the "Non-atomic" > header, and then also documented in Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt. > > Thoughts? For Documentation, this look reasonable to me. Thanks, -- Marco > cheers > > > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst b/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst > index 2caaeb55e8dd..4ac53a1363f6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst > @@ -57,21 +57,12 @@ The Linux kernel provides more basic utility functions. > Bit Operations > -------------- > > -Atomic Operations > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > .. kernel-doc:: include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-atomic.h > :internal: > > -Non-atomic Operations > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > .. kernel-doc:: include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-non-atomic.h > :internal: > > -Locking Operations > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > .. kernel-doc:: include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-lock.h > :internal: >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com> To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> Cc: linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>, kasan-dev <kasan-dev@googlegroups.com>, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] kasan: support instrumented bitops combined with generic bitops Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2019 14:36:23 +0100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CANpmjNO5MgoBGBxv5iTDCegF-Saxg7dxeiTBqQRKdeUf1F5wXQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <87r21lef1k.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 14:04, Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> wrote: > > Marco Elver <elver@google.com> writes: > > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 at 08:42, Daniel Axtens <dja@axtens.net> wrote: > >> > >> > But the docs do seem to indicate that it's atomic (for whatever that > >> > means for a single read operation?), so you are right, it should live in > >> > instrumented-atomic.h. > >> > >> Actually, on further inspection, test_bit has lived in > >> bitops/non-atomic.h since it was added in 4117b02132d1 ("[PATCH] bitops: > >> generic __{,test_and_}{set,clear,change}_bit() and test_bit()") > >> > >> So to match that, the wrapper should live in instrumented-non-atomic.h > >> too. > >> > >> If test_bit should move, that would need to be a different patch. But I > >> don't really know if it makes too much sense to stress about a read > >> operation, as opposed to a read/modify/write... > > > > That's fair enough. I suppose this can stay where it is because it's > > not hurting anyone per-se, but the only bad thing about it is that > > kernel-api documentation will present test_bit() in non-atomic > > operations. > > I only just noticed this thread as I was about to send a pull request > for these two commits. > > I think I agree that test_bit() shouldn't move (yet), but I dislike that > the documentation ends up being confusing due to this patch. > > So I'm inclined to append or squash in the patch below, which removes > the new headers from the documentation. The end result is the docs look > more or less the same, just the ordering of some of the functions > changes. But we don't end up with test_bit() under the "Non-atomic" > header, and then also documented in Documentation/atomic_bitops.txt. > > Thoughts? For Documentation, this look reasonable to me. Thanks, -- Marco > cheers > > > diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst b/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst > index 2caaeb55e8dd..4ac53a1363f6 100644 > --- a/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst > +++ b/Documentation/core-api/kernel-api.rst > @@ -57,21 +57,12 @@ The Linux kernel provides more basic utility functions. > Bit Operations > -------------- > > -Atomic Operations > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > .. kernel-doc:: include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-atomic.h > :internal: > > -Non-atomic Operations > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > .. kernel-doc:: include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-non-atomic.h > :internal: > > -Locking Operations > -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > - > .. kernel-doc:: include/asm-generic/bitops/instrumented-lock.h > :internal: >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-03 13:36 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-08-20 2:49 [PATCH v2 1/2] kasan: support instrumented bitops combined with generic bitops Daniel Axtens 2019-08-20 2:49 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] powerpc: support KASAN instrumentation of bitops Daniel Axtens 2019-08-20 2:49 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-08-20 16:34 ` Christophe Leroy 2019-08-20 16:34 ` Christophe Leroy 2019-08-20 9:55 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] kasan: support instrumented bitops combined with generic bitops Marco Elver 2019-08-20 9:55 ` Marco Elver 2019-08-30 5:11 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-10-28 13:56 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-11-14 20:56 ` Marco Elver 2019-11-14 20:56 ` Marco Elver 2019-11-15 13:11 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-11-15 13:11 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-11-20 7:42 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-11-20 7:42 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-11-20 8:32 ` Marco Elver 2019-11-20 8:32 ` Marco Elver 2019-12-03 13:04 ` Michael Ellerman 2019-12-03 13:04 ` Michael Ellerman 2019-12-03 13:36 ` Marco Elver [this message] 2019-12-03 13:36 ` Marco Elver 2019-12-03 23:39 ` Daniel Axtens 2019-12-03 23:39 ` Daniel Axtens
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=CANpmjNO5MgoBGBxv5iTDCegF-Saxg7dxeiTBqQRKdeUf1F5wXQ@mail.gmail.com \ --to=elver@google.com \ --cc=dja@axtens.net \ --cc=kasan-dev@googlegroups.com \ --cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \ --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \ --cc=x86@kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.