[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28a4c10f-f895-e8ff-d07b-9e4c35aa6342@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:06:01 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Joerg Roedel <jroedel@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/mm: Sync also unmappings in vmalloc_sync_one()
On 7/17/19 12:14 AM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> index 4a4049f6d458..d71e167662c3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> @@ -194,11 +194,12 @@ static inline pmd_t *vmalloc_sync_one(pgd_t *pgd, unsigned long address)
>
> pmd = pmd_offset(pud, address);
> pmd_k = pmd_offset(pud_k, address);
> - if (!pmd_present(*pmd_k))
> - return NULL;
>
> - if (!pmd_present(*pmd))
> + if (pmd_present(*pmd) ^ pmd_present(*pmd_k))
> set_pmd(pmd, *pmd_k);
Wouldn't:
if (pmd_present(*pmd) != pmd_present(*pmd_k))
set_pmd(pmd, *pmd_k);
be a bit more intuitive?
But, either way, these look fine. For the series:
Reviewed-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists