[PATCH] asm-generic: provide generic page_to_phys and phys_to_page implementations

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2024 at 02:06:27PM +0000, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> This is clearly a good idea, and I'm happy to take that through
> the asm-generic tree if there are no complaints.
> 
> Do you have any other patches that depend on it?

Well, I have new code that would benefit from these helpers, but just
open coding it for now and then doing a swipe to clean that up later
together with the existing open coded versions is easy enough.

> > -/*
> > - * Change "struct page" to physical address.
> > - */
> > -static inline phys_addr_t page_to_phys(struct page *page)
> > -{
> > -	unsigned long pfn = page_to_pfn(page);
> > -
> > -	WARN_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL) && !pfn_valid(pfn));
> > -
> > -	return PFN_PHYS(pfn);
> > -}
> 
> This part is technically a change in behavior, not sure how
> much anyone cares.

Well, the only other comment to the patch so far mentioned it.
It also feels like a useful check, but I'm a bit worried about
it triggering in various new places.  Although that's just with
CONFIG_DEBUG_VIRTUAL and probably points to real bugs, so maybe
adding it everywhere is a good idea.

> > +#define page_to_phys(page)	__pfn_to_phys(page_to_pfn(page))
> > +#define phys_to_page(phys)	pfn_to_page(__phys_to_pfn(phys))
> 
> I think we should try to have a little fewer nested macros
> to evaluate here, right now this ends up expanding
> __pfn_to_phys, PFN_PHYS, PAGE_SHIFT, CONFIG_PAGE_SHIFT,
> page_to_pfn and __page_to_pfn. While the behavior is fine,
> modern gcc versions list all of those in an warning message
> if someone passes the wrong arguments.
> 
> Changing the two macros above into inline functions
> would help as well, but may cause other problems.

Doing them as inlines seems useful to me, let me throw that at
the buildbot and see if anything explodes.

> On a related note, it would be even better if we could come
> up with a generic definition for either __pa/__va or
> virt_to_phys/phys_to_virt. Most architectures define one
> of the two pairs in terms of the other, which leads to
> confusion with header include order.

Agreed, but that's a separate project.