[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170726124704.GQ2981@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 14:47:04 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, steve.capper@....com,
will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/hugetlb: Make huge_pte_offset() consistent and
document behaviour
On Wed 26-07-17 14:33:57, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-07-17 13:11:46, Punit Agrawal wrote:
[...]
> > I've been running tests from mce-test suite and libhugetlbfs for similar
> > changes we did on arm64. There could be assumptions that were not
> > exercised but I'm not sure how to check for all the possible usages.
> >
> > Do you have any other suggestions that can help improve confidence in
> > the patch?
>
> Unfortunatelly I don't. I just know there were many subtle assumptions
> all over the place so I am rather careful to not touch the code unless
> really necessary.
>
> That being said, I am not opposing your patch.
Let me be more specific. I am not opposing your patch but we should
definitely need more reviewers to have a look. I am not seeing any
immediate problems with it but I do not see a large improvements either
(slightly less nightmare doesn't make me sleep all that well ;)). So I
will leave the decisions to others.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists