From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1FF0C433F5 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 23:49:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1343758AbiCNXug (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2022 19:50:36 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56518 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S242832AbiCNXub (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2022 19:50:31 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com (mga02.intel.com [134.134.136.20]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B1612A704 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:49:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1647301761; x=1678837761; h=message-id:date:mime-version:to:cc:references:from: subject:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7M5knxoOmfrCuDGDv6Hrs47RoFG1XAbST+A6t24ICJ8=; b=QPHlDHFBWZUSG3rlf3zIv8iIDh6rlIm3HCFknMeGqpkvK+sx/o3zK+41 s0lSwrXiM54riwcUhEgicOamZ6N2xipu4uV5hQ4FsJm5UzsHHUPmwDWtF 4ysCzmM0NGD+2f542TeZjSfWQC0pnf5YWSqfNnIvI5LjogAhBzIkBjFna o2WdfAz9O8OunILc8iIOnAgoRm1UbjVH7zF3TvkeTYytJQ/3rcsPhS/OB bfiOPz/6TbzZnltaQV9xHWoOWa8VHIPlEB6NI6CWyK0dVNNTIZMLz5+hx wbWB1TauLdUEUpw/Fif7oOBPvYIn/Qnldi1CAi1MFNTvmadMDrI7sE301 A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6200,9189,10286"; a="243622550" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,181,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="243622550" Received: from fmsmga004.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.48]) by orsmga101.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2022 16:49:20 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.90,181,1643702400"; d="scan'208";a="613071356" Received: from ssraox-mobl2.amr.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.55.169]) ([10.209.55.169]) by fmsmga004-auth.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Mar 2022 16:49:19 -0700 Message-ID: <42e0aa73-04c8-a4c2-2d64-80812634b627@intel.com> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:49:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: ira.weiny@intel.com, Dave Hansen , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Cc: "Edgecombe, Rick P" , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20220311005742.1060992-1-ira.weiny@intel.com> <20220311005742.1060992-6-ira.weiny@intel.com> From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/pkeys: Standardize on u8 for pkey type In-Reply-To: <20220311005742.1060992-6-ira.weiny@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/10/22 16:57, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > From: Ira Weiny > > The number of pkeys supported on x86 and powerpc are much smaller than a > u16 value can hold. It is desirable to standardize on the type for > pkeys. powerpc currently supports the most pkeys at 32. u8 is plenty > large for that. > > Standardize on the pkey types by changing u16 to u8. How widely was this intended to "standardize" things? Looks like it may have missed a few spots. Also if we're worried about the type needing to change or with the wrong type being used, I guess we could just to a pkey_t typedef.