linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] arm64: fix pud_huge() for 2-level pagetables

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1400255651.21547.214.camel@deneb.redhat.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 May 2014 11:54:11 -0400
From:	Mark Salter <msalter@...hat.com>
To:	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc:	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	Steve Capper <steve.capper@...aro.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: fix pud_huge() for 2-level pagetables

On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 11:04 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 03:19:22PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > index 5e9aec3..9bed38f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> > @@ -51,7 +51,11 @@ int pmd_huge(pmd_t pmd)
> >  
> >  int pud_huge(pud_t pud)
> >  {
> > +#ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED
> >  	return !(pud_val(pud) & PUD_TABLE_BIT);
> > +#else
> > +	return 0;
> > +#endif
> >  }
> >  
> >  int pmd_huge_support(void)
> > @@ -64,8 +68,10 @@ static __init int setup_hugepagesz(char *opt)
> >  	unsigned long ps = memparse(opt, &opt);
> >  	if (ps == PMD_SIZE) {
> >  		hugetlb_add_hstate(PMD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
> > +#ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED
> >  	} else if (ps == PUD_SIZE) {
> >  		hugetlb_add_hstate(PUD_SHIFT - PAGE_SHIFT);
> > +#endif
> 
> Since PMD_SIZE == PUD_SIZE when __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED, do we need the
> #ifndef here? Maybe the compiler is smart enough to remove it but it's
> not on a critical path anyway, so I wouldn't bother.
> 

Yes, I think it would remove it. In any case, one less ifdef would be
a good thing.


--
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/