Re: [PATCH RFC 00/11] mm: distinguish PTE table storage from PTE values

["David Hildenbrand (Arm)" <david@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/29/26 14:21, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 29/07/2026 12:52 pm, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
>> On 7/29/26 13:33, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>>> Yeah and architecture cannot opt-in until its converted. So we should leave
>>> it to architecture to define hw_pte_t.
>>
>> In the context of this series, we should have something like an
>> CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_XXX and select the definition based on that.
>>
>> So we'd have a generic variant.
> I'll add CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_XXX config in generic version.
> 
> I don't understand why generic code would define hw_pte_t if arch optionally
> opts-in.
> 
> Are you saying pte_t may have different definition in different arches. But
> the hw_pte_t would always be structure of pte_t. Hence definition
> 
> typedef struct { pte_t __pte; }; hw_pte_t;
> 
> can be moved to the generic code?
> 
> Moving definition to generic side is fine at this point in time. But if
> a arch wants to hw_pte_t opaque and don't want the generic code to perform
> arithmatic (ptep++), it'll not work.

Yes, but we can tackle this once some arch actually needs that. For now, it
makes this patch set easier to digest.

-- 
Cheers,

David