[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080109011100.GC25945@bingen.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 02:11:00 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glommer@...il.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00 of 10] x86: unify asm/pgtable.h
> Is _PAGE_GLOBAL causing the first if() to fall through to the second
Yes it obviously is.
> clause? Because otherwise it shouldn't have any effect on the pte_huge()
> test.
>
> Gah! This can't be right! I think the original change_page_attr() code is
> plain buggy.
It has a few rough edges. I was fixing various issues in the c_p_a() patch
series I posted recently.
The code bugs when you set the same area to the same protection several
times. That likely happens here.
The cpa series adds a helpful comment explaining this.
/*
* When you're here you either set the same page to PAGE_KERNEL
* two times in a row or the page table reference counting is
* broken again. To catch the later bug for now (sorry)
*/
printk(KERN_ERR "address %lx\n", address);
dump_pagetable(address);
BUG();
I've been considering taking it out, but is there ever a good reason
to do that? I left it in because it catches bugs in c_p_a itself.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists