[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <A40C2788-050A-4A1D-8804-5B718B72E879@linux.dev>
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2023 15:14:15 +0800
From: Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
To: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@...ha.franken.de>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
"Mike Rapoport (IBM)" <rppt@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm: use nth_page() in place of direct struct page
manipulation.
> On Aug 31, 2023, at 02:27, Zi Yan <zi.yan@...t.com> wrote:
>
> From: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
>
> When dealing with hugetlb pages, manipulating struct page pointers
> directly can get to wrong struct page, since struct page is not guaranteed
> to be contiguous on SPARSEMEM without VMEMMAP. Use nth_page() to handle
> it properly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>
Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Maybe 3 separate patches would be better for backporting purpose.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists