[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803151713050.1525@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 17:13:16 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
cc: Ram Pai <linuxram@...ibm.com>, mingo@...hat.com,
mpe@...erman.id.au, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
bsingharora@...il.com, hbabu@...ibm.com, mhocko@...nel.org,
bauerman@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com, corbet@....net,
arnd@...db.de, fweimer@...hat.com, msuchanek@...e.com,
Ulrich.Weigand@...ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] x86: treat pkey-0 special
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/15/2018 02:46 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> + if (!pkey || !mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, pkey))
> > Why this extra check? mm_pkey_is_allocated(mm, 0) should not return true
> > ever. If it does, then this wants to be fixed.
>
> I was thinking that we _do_ actually want it to seem allocated. It just
> get "allocated" implicitly when an mm is created. I think that will
> simplify the code if we avoid treating it specially in as many places as
> possible.
That works as well.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists