[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230204065001.GA18482@lst.de>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2023 07:50:01 +0100
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc: Sumit Garg <sumit.garg@...aro.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
op-tee@...ts.trustedfirmware.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Jens Wiklander <jens.wiklander@...aro.org>,
"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] highmem: Enhance is_kmap_addr() to check
kmap_local_page() mappings
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 08:06:32PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> - return addr >= PKMAP_ADDR(0) && addr < PKMAP_ADDR(LAST_PKMAP);
> +
> + return (addr >= PKMAP_ADDR(0) && addr < PKMAP_ADDR(LAST_PKMAP)) ||
> + (addr >= __fix_to_virt(FIX_KMAP_END) &&
> + addr < __fix_to_virt(FIX_KMAP_BEGIN));
Isn't the second check inverted?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists