[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809100902520.1402@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:04:36 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: "Yang, Bin" <bin.yang@...el.com>
cc: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Gross, Mark" <mark.gross@...el.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Hansen, Dave" <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 01/10] x86/mm/cpa: Split, rename and clean up
try_preserve_large_page()
On Mon, 10 Sep 2018, Yang, Bin wrote:
Can you please trim your replies? It's a pain in the neck to find the
single line of information within a large pile of useless quoted text.
> On Fri, 2018-09-07 at 17:01 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > /*
> > - * We need to check the full range, whether
> > - * static_protection() requires a different pgprot for one of
> > - * the pages in the range we try to preserve:
> > + * Make sure that the requested pgprot does not violate the static
> > + * protections. Check the full large page whether one of the pages
> > + * in it results in a different pgprot than the first one of the
> > + * requested range. If yes, then the page needs to be split.
> > */
> > - addr = address & pmask;
> > + new_prot = static_protections(req_prot, address, pfn, 1);
>
> "npg" is introduced by patch #3. It might be better to keep old API in
> this patch.
Yes. That's bogus. Will fix.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists