On 9/10/26 04:02, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote: > On 9/2/26 22:48, Dave Hansen wrote: >> On 9/2/26 04:56, Yeoreum Yun wrote: >>> Instead of using hard-coded integer in effective_prot_pXd(), use >>> pgtable level enum. >> Does this actually *do* anything? 😉 >> >> I guess it's nice to have a wee bit of type safety from the enum and it >> means that you don't have to *know* which level number a PUD is, for >> example. > The next patch passes the value to mm_first_pgtable_level(). Not sure what > x86's > preference is to spell something like that out in the patch description. > > "Prepare for future code changes that will consume the generic enum > pgtable_level from inside effective_prot()."
Yes, a little "prepare" blob would be great. Maybe even explain that generic mm code uses symbolic names for the page table levels, not integers and this makes the helper usable in this x86 code.
