[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2d30c629-5169-1405-4f3e-03d630a99678@fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2021 09:30:42 +0000
From: "lizhijian@...itsu.com" <lizhijian@...itsu.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"lizhijian@...itsu.com" <lizhijian@...itsu.com>
CC: "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"jglisse@...hat.com" <jglisse@...hat.com>,
"jgg@...pe.ca" <jgg@...pe.ca>,
"yishaih@...dia.com" <yishaih@...dia.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm/hmm: bypass devmap pte when all pfn requested flags
are fulfilled
On 30/08/2021 15:32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 28, 2021 at 09:04:41AM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote:
>> + if (!pte_devmap(pte) && pte_special(pte) &&
>> + !is_zero_pfn(pte_pfn(pte))) {
> Maybe this is a little too superficial and nitpicky, but I find the
> ordering of the checks a little strange. Why not do the pte_special
> first and then the exlusions from it later?
>
It sounds good to me, let's update it
Thanks
Zhijian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists