[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <519C01D8.4040301@sr71.net>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 16:23:04 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 29/39] thp: move maybe_pmd_mkwrite() out of mk_huge_pmd()
On 05/11/2013 06:23 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
>
> It's confusing that mk_huge_pmd() has sematics different from mk_pte()
> or mk_pmd().
>
> Let's move maybe_pmd_mkwrite() out of mk_huge_pmd() and adjust
> prototype to match mk_pte().
Was there a motivation to do this beyond adding consistency? Do you use
this later or something?
> @@ -746,7 +745,8 @@ static int __do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page(struct mm_struct *mm,
> pte_free(mm, pgtable);
> } else {
> pmd_t entry;
> - entry = mk_huge_pmd(page, vma);
> + entry = mk_huge_pmd(page, vma->vm_page_prot);
> + entry = maybe_pmd_mkwrite(pmd_mkdirty(entry), vma);
> page_add_new_anon_rmap(page, vma, haddr);
> set_pmd_at(mm, haddr, pmd, entry);
I'm not the biggest fan since this does add lines of code, but I do
appreciate the consistency it adds, so:
Acked-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
--
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