[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190807171755.GI1571@mellanox.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 17:18:01 +0000
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/15] mm: don't abuse pte_index() in hmm_vma_handle_pmd
On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 07:05:47PM +0300, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> pte_index is an internal arch helper in various architectures,
> without consistent semantics. Open code that calculation of a PMD
> index based on the virtual address instead.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> ---
> mm/hmm.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
There sure are a lot of different ways to express this, but this one
looks OK to me, at least the switch from the PTRS_PER_PTE expression
in the x86 imlpementation to PMD_MASK looks equivalent
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists