[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <op.v9hbr5xx3l0zgt@mpn-glaptop>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:13:07 +0100
From: "Michal Nazarewicz" <mina86@...a86.com>
To: "Dan Smith" <danms@...ibm.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Ensure that walk_page_range()'s start and end are
page-aligned
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 20:57:31 +0100, Dan Smith <danms@...ibm.com> wrote:
> MN> Commit message says about walk_pte_range() but commit changes
> MN> walk_page_range().
>
> Yep, the issue occurs in walk_pte_range().
OK, it wasn't immediately obvious for me that while loop in walk_page_range()
will actually recover if arguments are not aligned (since pgd_addr_end() caps
returned value).
> The goal was to ensure that
> the external interface to it (which is walk_page_range()) does the check
> and avoids doing the walk entirely. I think the expectation is that
> walk_page_range() is used on aligned addresses. If we put the check in
> walk_pte_range() then only walks with a pte_entry handler would fail on
> unaligned addresses, which is potentially confusing.
>
> MN> So why not change the condition to addr < end?
>
> That would work, of course, but seems sloppier and less precise. The
> existing code was clearly written expecting to walk aligned addresses.
Fair enough.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +----<email/xmpp: mpn@...gle.com>--------------ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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